71 FR 53413, September 11, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C-580-818)
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review:
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (i.e., corrosion-
resistant carbon steel plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for
the period of review (POR) January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.
For information on the net subsidy for each of the reviewed companies,
see the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
(See the ``Public Comment'' section of this notice).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Gayle Longest, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2209 or (202) 482-3338,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the Federal
Register the CVD order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products from Korea. See Countervailing Duty Orders and Amendments to
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel
Products from Korea, 58 FR 43752 (August 17, 1993). On August 1, 2005,
the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of this CVD order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1,
2005). On August 31, 2005, we received a timely request for review from
Pohang Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (POSCO) and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.
(Dongbu). On September 28, 2005, the Department published a notice of
initiation of the administrative review of the CVD order on corrosion-
resistent carbon steel flat products from Korea covering the POR
January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October
19, 2005, the Department sent its initial questionnaire to POSCO,
Dongbu, and the Government of Korea (GOK). On December 21, 2005, the
Department received questionnaire responses from POSCO, Pohang Steel
Co., Ltd. (POCOS, a production affiliate of POSCO), POSCO Steel Service
& Sales Co., Ltd. (POSTEEL, a trading company for POSCO),\1\ Dongbu,
and the GOK. On March 20, 2006, we issued supplemental questionnaires
to POSCO and the GOK. On April 3, 2006, we received the responses to
these supplemental questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In these preliminary results, unless otherwise stated, we
use POSCO to collectively refer to POSCO, POCOS, and POSTEEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of extension of the time period for issuing the preliminary
results. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France
and the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 19714
(April 17, 2006). On July 31, 2006, we issued an additional
supplemental questionnaire to POSCO, POCOS, and POSTEEL. On August 3,
2006, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to the GOK. We
received responses to these supplemental questionnaires on August 11,
2006.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those
producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested.
The companies subject to this review are POSCO (and its affiliates
POCOS and POSTEEL) and Dongbu.
Affiliated Parties and Trading Companies
In the present administrative review, record evidence indicates
that POCOS is a majority-owned affiliate of POSCO. Under 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(iii), if the firm that received a subsidy is a holding
company, including a parent company with its own operations, the
Department will attribute the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the
holding company and its subsidiaries. Thus, we attributed subsidies
received by POCOS to POSCO and its subsidiaries, net of intra-company
sales. Dongbu reported that it is the only member of the Donbu group in
Korea that was involved with the sale of subject merchandise to the
United States.
Scope of Order
Products covered by this order are certain corrosion-resistant
carbon steel flat products from Korea. These products include flat-
rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad,
plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc,
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or
not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of
0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness
less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and
which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of
4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the thickness. The merchandise subject to
this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7210.30.0000,
7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090,
7210.60.0000, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060,
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,
7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000,
7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000,
7215.90.1000, 7215.9030, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000,
7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000,
7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.30.15.0000, 7217.32.5000,
7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 7217.39.5000,
[[Page 53414]]
7217.90.1000 and 7217.90.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written
description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Average Useful Life
Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will presume the allocation period
for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of
renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the
Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation
Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The
presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the
IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the
country-wide AUL for the industry under examination and that the
difference between the company-specific and/or country-wide AUL and the
AUL from the IRS table is significant. According to the IRS Tables, the
AUL of the steel industry is 15 years. No interested party challenged
the 15-year AUL derived from the IRS tables. Thus, in this review, we
have allocated, where applicable, all of the non-recurring subsidies
provided to the producers/exporters of subject merchandise over a 15-
year AUL.
Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Benchmarks for Short-Term Financing
For those programs requiring the application of a won-denominated,
short-term interest rate benchmark, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.505(a)(2)(iv), we used as our benchmark a company-specific
weighted-average interest rate for commercial won-denominated loans
outstanding during the POR. Where unavailable, we used the average
interest rate on lending rate loans for the POR, as reported in the
IMF's International Financial Statistics Yearbook. This approach is in
accordance with the Department's practice. See, e.g., the Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Structural Steel Beams
From the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 41051 (July 3, 2000) (H Beams
Investigation), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (H
Beams Decision Memorandum), at ``Benchmarks for Short-Term Financing.''
B. Benchmark for Long-Term Loans Issued Through 2004
During the POR, POSCO and Dongbu had outstanding long-term won-
denominated and foreign-currency denominated loans from government-
owned banks and Korean commercial banks. Based on our findings on this
issue in prior investigations and administrative reviews, we are using
the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to
respondents' countervailable long-term loans obtained in the years 1991
through 2004:
(1) For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii), and consistent with our past
practice to date, our preference is to use the company-specific,
weighted-average foreign currency-denominated interest rates on the
company's loans from foreign bank branches in Korea, foreign
securities, and direct foreign loans received after 1991. See, e.g.,
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30636, 30642
(June 8, 1999) (Sheet and Strip Investigation); see also Final Negative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 15530, 15533 (March 31, 1999) (Plate in
Coils Investigation). Where no such benchmark instruments are
available, and consistent with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii) as well as our
methodology in a prior administrative review, we relied on the lending
rates as reported by the IMF's International Financial Statistics
Yearbook. See Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from the Republic of Korea, 69 FR 2113 (January 14, 2004) (2001 Sheet
and Strip), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (2001
Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum), at ``Subsidies Valuation
Information.''
(2) For countervailable, won-denominated, long-term loans, our
practice is to use the company-specific corporate bond rate on the
company's public and private bonds, as we determined that the GOK did
not control the Korean domestic bond market after 1991 and that
domestic bonds may serve as an appropriate benchmark interest rate. See
Plate in Coils Investigation, 64 FR at 15531; see also 19 CFR
351.505(a)(2)(ii). Where unavailable, we used the national average of
the yields on three-year corporate bonds, as reported by the Bank of
Korea (BOK). We note that the use of the three-year corporate bond rate
from the BOK follows the approach taken in the Plate in Coils
Investigation, in which we determined that, absent company-specific
interest rate information, the corporate bond rate is the best
indicator of a market rate for won-denominated long-term loans in
Korea. See Plate in Coils Investigation, 64 FR at 15531. See also 19
CFR 505(a)(3)(ii).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2), our benchmarks take into
consideration the structure of the government-provided loans. For
fixed-rate loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used
benchmark rates issued in the same year that the government loans were
issued. For variable-rate loans outstanding during the POR, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(i), our preference is to use the interest rates of
variable-rate lending instruments issued during the year in which the
government loans were issued. Where such benchmark instruments are
unavailable, we used interest rates from loans issued during the POR as
our benchmark, as such rates better reflect a variable interest rate
that would be in effect during the POR. This approach is in accordance
with the Department's practice under similar facts. See, e.g., Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the Republic of Korea, 68
FR 13267 (March 19, 2003) (2000 Sheet and Strip), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum),
at Comment 8; see also 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(ii).
C. Benchmark Discount Rates
Certain programs examined in this administrative review require the
allocation of won-denominated benefits over time. Thus, we have
employed the allocation methodology described under 19 CFR 351.524(d).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i), we based our discount rate upon
data for the year in which the government agreed to provide the
subsidy. Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(A), our preference is to use the
cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans of the firm in question. Thus,
where available, we used company-specific corporate bond rates on
public and private bonds. See Plate in Coils Investigation, 64 FR at
15531. Where unavailable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we
used the national average of the yields on three-year corporate bonds,
as reported by the BOK.
I. Program Preliminarily Determined to Confer Subsidies
A The GOK's Direction of Credit
1. Countervailable Loans Received Through 1991
[[Page 53415]]
In the 1993 investigation of Steel Products from Korea, the
Department determined that (1) the GOK influenced the practices of
lending institutions in Korea; (2) the GOK regulated long-term loans
provided to the steel industry on a selective basis; and (3) the
selective provision of these regulated loans resulted in a
countervailable benefit. Accordingly, all long-term loans received by
the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise were treated as
countervailable. The determination in that investigation covered all
long-term loans issued through 1991. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determinations and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances Determinations: Certain Steel Products From Korea, 58 FR
37338, 37339 (July 9, 1993) (Steel Products from Korea). This finding
of control was determined to be sufficient to constitute a government
program and government action. See id., 58 FR at 37342. In Steel
Products from Korea, we also determined that (1) the Korean steel
sector, as a result of the GOK's credit policies and control over the
Korean financial sector, received a disproportionate share of regulated
long-term loans, so that the program was, de facto, specific, and (2)
the interest rates on those loans were inconsistent with commercial
considerations. See id., 58 FR at 37343. On this basis, we
countervailed all long-term loans received by the steel sector from all
lending sources through 1991. See, e.g., H Beams Decision Memorandum,
at ``The GOK's Credit Policies Through 1991.''
2. Countervailable Loans Received from 1992 Through 2001
In subsequent proceedings, with regard to the period 1992 through
2001, the Department consistently found the GOK continued to exercise
control over the lending practices of domestic commercial banks and
government-controlled banks, and thereby directed subsidies specific to
the steel industry within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, we found that such
loans constituted a financial contribution within the meaning of
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and a benefit under section
771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, to the extent that the interest rates on the
loans were lower than the interest rates on comparable commercial
loans. See Sheet and Strip Investigation, 64 FR at 30642 (regarding
1992 through 1997); and Plate in Coils Investigation, 64 FR at 15533
(regarding 1992 through 1997); H Beams Decision Memorandum, at ``The
GOK's Credit Policies from 1992 through 1998''; Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 67
FR 1964 (January 15, 2002) (1999 Sheet and Strip), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (1999 Sheet and Strip Decision
Memorandum) at ``the GOK's Direction of Credit'' (regarding 1999);
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea, 67 FR
62102 (October 3, 2002) (Cold-Rolled Investigation), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum), at
``The GOK Directed Credit'' (regarding 2000); and 2001 Sheet and Strip
Decision Memorandum, at ``The GOK's Direction of Credit'' (regarding
2001).
During the POR, POSCO and Dongbu had outstanding loans that were
received prior to the 2002 period. As stated above, the Department has
found GOK-directed credit from domestic commercial banks and
government-owned banks to be countervailable through 2001. POSCO,
Dongbu, and the GOK did not provide any new information that would
warrant a change in these prior findings. Therefore, we continue to
find that POSCO and Dongbu benefitted from this program, which provides
a countervailable subsidy of loans from government-owned or controlled
banks through 2001.
3. Countervailable Loans Received from 2002 Through 2004
Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other
person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so
without undue difficulties. However, because the GOK failed to provide
the requested information, section 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not
applicable.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(AFA) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record.
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance
with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of AFA is
appropriate for the preliminary results for the determination of
direction of credit for loans received from 2002 through 2004.
We asked the GOK for information pertaining to the GOK's direction
of credit policies for the period from 2002 through 2004. The GOK did
not provide any additional information, stating instead that:
The Department has consistently found that long-term loans received
by the steel industry were the result of GOK direction, despite the
GOK's repeated objections and demonstrations to the contrary. While the
GOK does not agree with the Department's position, the legal costs to
further contest this issue in this review overshadow any possible
benefit.
See the December 21, 2005, GOK Questionnaire Response, at 8. Because
the GOK withheld the requested information on its lending policies, the
Department does not have the necessary information on the record to
determine whether the GOK has continued its direction of credit
policies from 2002 through 2004. Therefore, the Department must base
its determination
[[Page 53416]]
on facts otherwise available. See Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
In this case, the GOK refused to supply requested information that
was in its possession, and which it had provided in prior proceedings.
See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea, 64
FR 73176, 73178 (December 29, 1999) (CTL Plate Investigation).
Therefore, we find that the GOK did not act to the best of its ability
and are employing an adverse inference in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available. As AFA, we therefore find that the GOK's
direction of credit policies continued from 2002 through 2004. As noted
above, the GOK's direction of credit policies provide a financial
contribution, confer a benefit, and are specific, pursuant to sections
771(5)(D)(i), 771(5)(E)(ii), and 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act,
respectively. Therefore, we preliminarily find that lending from
domestic banks and government-owned banks during the 2002 and 2004
period are countervailable. Thus, any loans received during 2002 and
2004 from domestic banks and government-owned banks that were
outstanding during the POR are countervailable, to the extent that the
interest amount paid on the loan is less than what would have been paid
on a comparable commercial loan. The Department's decision to rely on
adverse inferences when lacking a response from the GOK regarding the
direction of credit issue is in accordance with its practice. See,
e.g., Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review:
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of
Korea, 71 FR 11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) (2004 CTL Plate) (unchanged
in final results); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Korea, 71
FR 38861 (July 10, 2006).
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
[lsqb]i[rsqb]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise. See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Session, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however,
that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available
are the best alternative information. Id.
Thus, in those instances in which it determines to apply AFA, the
Department, in order to satisfy itself that such information has
probative value, will examine, to the extent practicable, the
reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike
other types of information, such as publicly available data on the
national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest
rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on the
specificity of countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for
such information normally is administrative determinations, which are
reliable. In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or
obtained that contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon
in previous segments of this proceeding.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not
appropriate as AFA, the Department will not use it. See Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant case, no
evidence has been presented or obtained that contradicts the finding of
directed credit relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding.
Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the information
used has been corroborated to the extent practicable.
Dongbu and POSCO reported that, during the POR, they had
outstanding fixed-rate and variable-rate loans from government-owned or
-controlled lending institutions that were issued between 2002 and
2004.
4. Calculation of the Benefit and Net Subsidy Rate Under the
Direction of Credit Program
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(c)(2) and (4), we calculated the
benefit for each fixed- and variable-rate loan received from GOK-owned
or -controlled banks to be the difference between the actual amount of
interest paid on the directed loan during the POR and the amount of
interest that would have been paid during the POR at the benchmark
interest rate. We conducted our benefit calculations using the
benchmark interest rates described in the ``Subsidies Valuation
Information'' section above. For foreign currency-denominated loans, we
converted the benefits into Korean won using exchange rates obtained
from the BOK. We then summed the benefits from each company's long-term
fixed-rate and variable-rate won-denominated loans.
To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the companies' total
benefits by their respective total f.o.b. sales values during the POR,
as this program is not tied to exports or a particular product. In
calculating the net subsidy rate for POSCO, we removed from the
denominator sales made between affiliated parties.\2\ On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate under the direction of
credit program to be less than 0.005 percent ad valorem for POSCO and
0.14 percent ad valorem for Dongbu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For POSCO, we also removed intra-company sales from the
denominators of the net subsidy rate calculations of the other
programs found countervailable in these preliminary results. This
step was not necessary for Dongbu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Asset Revaluation Under Article 56(2) of the Tax Reduction and
Exemption Control Act (TERCL)
Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the GOK permitted companies that
made an initial public offering between January 1, 1987, and December
31, 1990, to revalue their assets at a rate higher than the 25 percent
required of most other companies under the Asset Revaluation Act. The
Department has previously found this program to be countervailable. For
example, in the CTL Plate Investigation, the Department determined that
this program was de facto specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the
Act because the actual recipients of the subsidy were limited in number
and the basic metal industry was a dominant user of this program. We
also determined that a financial contribution was provided in the form
of tax revenue foregone pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act.
See CTL Plate Investigation, 64 FR at 73182 - 83. The Department
further determined that a benefit was conferred within the meaning of
section 771(5)(E) of the Act on those companies that were able to
revalue their assets under TERCL Article 56(2) because the revaluation
resulted in participants paying fewer taxes than they would otherwise
pay
[[Page 53417]]
absent the program. Id. No new information, evidence of changed
circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in
this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of
this program.
The benefit from this program is the difference that the
revaluation of depreciable assets has on a company's tax liability each
year. Evidence on the record indicates that, in 1989, POSCO made an
asset revaluation that increased its depreciation expense. Dongbu
reported that it did not use this program during the POR. To calculate
the benefit to POSCO, we took the additional depreciation listed in the
tax return filed during the POR, which resulted from the company's
asset revaluation, and multiplied that amount by the tax rate
applicable to that tax return. We then divided the resulting benefit by
POSCO's total f.o.b. sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine
the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.02 percent ad valorem for
POSCO.
C. Research and Development (R&D) Grants Under the Industrial
Development Act (IDA)
The GOK, through the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy
(MOCIE), provides R&D grants to support numerous projects pursuant to
the IDA, including technology for core materials, components,
engineering systems, and resource technology. The IDA is designed to
foster the development of efficient technology for industrial
development. To participate in this program a company may: (1) Perform
its own R&D project, (2) participate through the Korea New Iron and
Steel Technology Research Association (KNISTRA), which is an
association of steel companies established for the development of new
iron and steel technology, and/or (3) participate in another company's
R&D project and share R&D costs, along with funds received from the
GOK. To be eligible to participate in this program, the applicant must
meet the qualifications set forth in the basic plan and must perform
R&D as set forth under the Notice of Industrial Basic Technology
Development. If the R&D project is not successful, the company must
repay the full amount.
In the H Beams Investigation, the Department determined that
through KNISTRA the Korean steel industry receives funding specific to
the steel industry. Therefore, given the nature of KNISTRA, the
Department found projects under KNISTRA to be specific. See Preliminary
Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final
Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty
Determination: Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea, 64 FR
69731, 69740 (December 14, 1999)(unchanged in the final results); and H
Beams Decision Memorandum, at ``R&D Grants under The Korea New Iron &
Steel Technology Research Association (KNISTRA).'' Further, we found
that the grants constituted a financial contribution and conferred a
benefit in accordance with sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the
Act, respectively. Id. No new factual information or evidence of
changed circumstances has been provided to the Department with respect
to this program. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this
program is de jure specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i)
of the Act and constitutes a financial contribution and confers a
benefit under sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act,
respectively.
Dongbu reported that it did not use the program. POSCO reported
receiving grants through KNISTRA; however, it claims that the research
grants it received under the program are tied to non-subject
merchandise. Upon review of the information submitted by the GOK and
POSCO, we preliminarily determine that certain grants are tied to non-
subject merchandise, and thus, we did not include these grants in our
benefit calculations. See GOK's December 21, 2005, Questionnaire
Response, at Exhibit J-5. However, POSCO also reported receiving
certain other grants related to a production process that can be used
for an input into the production of subject merchandise. See POSCO's
December 21, 2005, Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 6; and Dongbu's
December 21, 2005, Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 6. See the
Memorandum to the File from Gayle Longest and Robert Copyak, Case
Analysts, ``Factual Information Regarding the Steel Production
Process,'' August 31, 2006, which is on file in the Central Records
Unit, room B-099 the main Commerce Building. Under 19 CFR
351.525(b)(5), if a subsidy is tied to the production or sale of a
particular product, the Department will attribute the subsidy only to
that product. But, under sub-paragraph (ii), if a subsidy is tied to
the production of an input product, then the Department will attribute
the subsidy to both the input and downstream products produced by a
corporation. Accordingly, we have attributed the grant related to a
production process that can be used as an input into the production of
subject merchandise to POSCO's total sales.
To determine the benefit from the grants that POSCO received
through KNISTRA, we calculated the GOK's contribution for each R&D
project. Next, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we determined
whether to allocate the non-recurring benefit from the grants over
POSCO's AUL by dividing the approved amount by POSCO's total sales in
the year of approval. Because the approved amounts were less than 0.5
percent of POSCO's total sales in the year of receipt, we expensed the
grants to the year of receipt. Next, to calculate the net subsidy rate,
we divided the portion of the benefit allocated to the POR by POSCO's
total f.o.b. sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine POSCO's net subsidy rate under this program to be less than
0.005 percent ad valorem.
D. Exemption of VAT on Imports of Anthracite Coal
Under Article 106 of Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA),
imports of anthracite coal are exempt from the value added tax (VAT).
In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we determined that the program is de
jure specific to the steel industry under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the
Act, as the items allowed to be imported without paying VAT are limited
to the production of steel products. See Cold-Rolled Decision
Memorandum, at ``Exemption of VAT on Imports of Anthracite Coal.'' We
also determined that the VAT exemptions under the program constitute a
financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, as the
GOK is not collecting revenue otherwise due, and that the exemptions
confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act equal to the amount
of the VAT that would have otherwise been paid if not for the
exemption. No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or
comments from interested parties were presented in this review to
warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program.
Dongbu reported that it did not use the program during the POR.
POSCO imported anthracite coal during the POR and, therefore, received
a benefit in the amount of the VAT that it would have otherwise paid if
not for the exemption. To determine POSCO's benefit from the VAT
exemption on these imports, we calculated the amount of VAT that would
have been due absent the program on the total value of anthracite coal
POSCO imported during the POR. We then divided the amount of this tax
benefit by POSCO's respective total f.o.b. sales. Based upon this
methodology, we preliminarily
[[Page 53418]]
determine that POSCO received a countervailable subsidy of 0.04 percent
ad valorem.
E. GOK Infrastructure Investment at Kwangyang Bay Through 1991
In Steel Products from Korea, the Department investigated the GOK's
infrastructure investments at Kwangyang Bay over the period 1983-1991.
We determined that the GOK's provision of infrastructure at Kwangyang
Bay was countervailable because POSCO was the predominant user of the
GOK's investments. Dongbu did not use this program. Consistent with
section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, the Department has consistently
held that a countervailable subsidy exists when benefits under a
program are provided, or are required to be provided, in law or in
fact, to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or
industries. See, e.g., Steel Products from Korea, 58 FR at 37346; and
CTL Plate Investigation, 64 FR at 73180. No new factual information or
evidence of changed circumstances has been provided to the Department
with respect to the GOK's infratructure at Kwangyang Bay over the
period 1983-1991. Therefore, we preliminarily determine the
infrastructure investments the GOK provided to POSCO are de facto
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of the Act.
Further, we preliminarily determine that the infrastructure investments
constitute a financial contribution and confer a benefit within the
meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act,
respectively.
To determine the benefit from the GOK's investments to POSCO during
the POR, we utilized the approach adopted in prior proceedings. See,
e.g., CTL Plate Investigation, 64 FR at 73180. In measuring the benefit
from this program, we treated the GOK's costs of constructing the
infrastructure at Kwangyang Bay as untied, non-recurring grants in each
year in which the costs were incurred. To calculate the benefit
conferred during the POR, we applied the Department's standard grant
methodology and allocated the GOK's infrastructure investments over a
15-year allocation period. See the ``Average Useful Life'' section,
above. Using the 15-year allocation period, POSCO is still receiving
benefits under this program from the GOK investments made during the
years 1990 through 1991. To calculate the benefit from these grants, we
used as our discount rate the rate describe above in the ``Subsidies
Valuation Information'' section. We then summed the benefits received
by POSCO during the POR from each of the GOK's yearly investments over
the period 1990-1991. We then divided the total benefit attributable to
the POR by POSCO's total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine POSCO's net countervailable subsidy rate to be
0.01 percent ad valorem for the POR.
F. Other Subsidies Related to Operations at Asan Bay: Provision of Land
and Exemption of Port Fees Under Harbor Act
1. Provision of Land
As explained in the Cold-Rolled Investigation, the GOK's overall
development plan is published every 10 years and describes the
nationwide land development goals and plans for the balanced
development of the country. Under these plans, the Ministry of
Construction and Transportation (MOCAT) prepares and updates its Asan
Bay Area Broad Development Plan. See Cold-Rolled Investigation
Memorandum, at ``Provision of Land at Asan Bay.'' The Korea Land
Development Corporation (Koland) is a government investment corporation
that is responsible for purchasing, developing, and selling land in the
industrial sites. Id.
In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we verified that the GOK, in
setting the price per square meter for land at the Kodai industrial
estate, removed the 10 percent profit component from the price charged
to Dongbu. Id. In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we further explained
that companies purchasing land at Asan Bay must make payments on the
purchase and development of the land before the final settlement.
However, in the case of Dongbu, we found that the GOK provided an
adjustment to Dongbu's final payment to account for ``interest earned''
by the company for the pre-payments. Id. POSCO did not use this
program.
In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we determined that the price
discount and the adjustment of Dongbu's final payment to account for
``interest earned'' by the company on its pre-payments were
countervailable subsidies. Specifically, the Department determined that
they were specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, as they
were limited to Dongbu. Id. Further, the Department found the price
discount and the price adjustment for ``interest earned'' constituted
financial contributions and conferred benefits under sections
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. Id.
Consistent with the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we have treated the
land price discount and the interested earned refund as non-recurring
subsidies. Id. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), because the
grant amounts were more than 0.5 percent of the company's total sales
in the year of receipt, we applied the Department's standard grant
methodology, as described under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(1), and allocated the
subsidies over a 15-year allocation period. See the ``Average Useful
Life'' section, above. To calculate the benefit from these grants, we
used as our discount rate the rates describe above in the ``Subsidies
Valuation Information'' section. We then summed the benefits received
by Dongbu during the POR. We calculated the net subsidy rate by
dividing the total benefit attributable to the POR by Dongbu's total
f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we determine a net
countervailable subsidy rate for Dongbu of 0.22 percent ad valorem for
the POR.
2. Exemption of Port Fees Under Harbor Act
Under the Harbor Act, companies are allowed to construct
infrastructure facilities at Korean ports; however, these facilities
must be deeded back to the government. Because the ownership of these
facilities reverts to the government, the government compensates
private parties for the construction of these infrastructure
facilities. Because a company must transfer to the government its
infrastructure investment, under the Harbor Act, the GOK grants the
company free usage of the facility and the right to collect fees from
other users of the facility for a limited period of time. Once a
company has recovered its cost of constructing the infrastructure, the
company must pay the same usage fees as other users of the
infrastructure.
In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, the Department found that Dongbu
received free use of harbor facilities at Asan Bay based upon both its
construction of a port facility as well as a road that the company
built from its plant to its port. The Department also determined that
Dongbu received an exemption of harbor fees for a period of almost 70
years under this program. See Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum, at
``Dongbu's Excessive Exemptions under the Harbor Act.'' In the Cold-
Rolled Investigation, the Department found the exemption from the fees
to be a countervailable subsidy. No new information of changed
circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in
this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of
this program. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the program is
specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the
excessive exemption period of 70 years
[[Page 53419]]
is limited to Dongbu. Moreover, we preliminarily determine that the GOK
is foregoing revenue that it would otherwise collect by allowing Dongbu
to be exempt from port charges for up to 70 years and, thus, the
program constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Further, we preliminarily determine
that the exemptions confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the
Act. Id. No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or
comments from interested parties were presented in this review to
warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program.
Thus, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find
this aspect of the program countervailable.
In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, the Department treated the
program as a non-recurring subsidy and determined that the benefit is
equal to the average yearly amount of harbor fees exemptions provided
to Dongbu. Id. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have
employed the same benefit calculation. To calculate the net subsidy
rate, we divided the average yearly amount of exemptions by Dongbu's
total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine that Dongbu's net subsidy rate under this program is 0.02
percent ad valorem.
G. Short-Term Export Financing
The Korean Export Import Bank (KEXIM) supplies two types of short-
term loans for exporting companies, short-term trade financing and
comprehensive export financing. KEXIM provides short-term loans to
Korean exporters who manufacture export goods under export contracts.
The loans are provided up to the amount of the bill of exchange or
contracted amount less any amount already received. For comprehensive
export financing loans, KEXIM supplies short-term loans to any small or
medium-sized company, or any large company that is not included in the
five largest conglomerates based on their comprehensive export
performance. To obtain the loans, companies must report their export
performance periodically to KEXIM for review. Comprehensive export
financing loans cover from 50 to 90 percent of the company's export
performance; however, the maximum loan amount is restricted to 30
billion won.
In Steel Products from Korea, the Department determined that the
GOK's short-term export financing program was countervailable. See
Steel Products from Korea, 58 FR at 37350; see also, Cold-Rolled
Decision Memorandum, at ``Short-term Export Financing.'' No new
information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from
interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any
reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Therefore,
we continue to find this program countervailable. Specifically, we
preliminarily determine that the program is specific, pursuant section
771(5A)(B), because receipt of the financing is contingent upon
exporting. In addition, we preliminarily determine that the export
financing constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a loan
within the meaning of section 771(D)(i) of the Act and confers a
benefit within the meaning of section 771(E)(ii) of the Act. POCOS,
POSCO's affiliate, and Dongbu reported using short-term export
financing during the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), to calculate the benefit under
this program, we compared the amount of interest paid under the program
to the amount of interest that would have been paid on a comparable,
commercial loan. As our benchmark, we used the short-term interest
rates discussed above in the ``Subsidies Valuation Information''
section. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by
the f.o.b. value of the respective company's total exports. On this
basis, we determine the net subsidy rate for POSCO to be less than
0.005 percent ad valorem and 0.01 percent ad valorem for Dongbu.
II. Program Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer a Benefit
A. Reserve for Research and Manpower Development Fund Under RSTA
Article 9 (Formerly Article 8 of TERCL)
On December 28, 1998, the TERCL was replaced by the Tax Reduction
and Exemption Control Act (RSTA). Pursuant to this change in law, TERCL
Article 8 is now identified as RSTA Article 9. Apart from the name
change, the operation of RSTA Article 9 is the same as the previous
TERCL Article 8 and its Enforcement Decree.
This program allows a company operating in manufacturing or mining,
or in a business prescribed by the Presidential Decree, to appropriate
reserve funds to cover expenses related to the development or
innovation of technology. These reserve funds are included in the
company's losses and reduce the amount of taxes paid by the company.
Under this program, capital goods companies and capital intensive
companies can establish a reserve of five percent of total revenue,
while companies in all other industries are only allowed to establish a
three- percent reserve.
In the CTL Plate Investigation, we determined that this program is
specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act because the capital goods
industry is allowed to claim a larger tax reserve under this program
than all other manufacturers. See CTL Plate Investigation, 64 FR at
73181. We also determined that this program provides a financial
contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act in
the form of revenue forgone and that it provides benefit under section
771(5)(E) of the Act to the extent that companies in the capital goods
industry, which includes steel manufacturers, pay less in taxes than
they would absent the program. Id. In the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we
continued to find the program countervailable, but found that the
company under review only contributed to the reserve at the lower
three-percent rate. Therefore, we found no countervailable benefit
because it is not specific as all industries and companies in Korea can
establish a three-percent reserve. See Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum,
at ``Programs Determined to be Not Used'' (finding the countervailable
aspect of this program to be not used). No new information, or evidence
of changed circumstances, was presented in this review to warrant
reconsideration of the approaches adopted in the CTL Plate
Investigation and the Cold-Rolled Investigation.
In this administrative review, Dongbu, POSCO, and POCOS each
reported contributing to the reserve at the three-percent rate during
the POR. Dongbu also reported that it returned the remaining balance
from the reserve. We continue to find this program to be potentially
countervailable. However, as each company contributed to the reserve at
the lower three-percent rate, and in light of the Department's approach
in the Cold-Rolled Investigation, we preliminarily determine that no
countervailable benefits were conferred under this program during the
POR.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used
A. Reserve for Investment (Special Cases of Tax for Balanced
Development Among Areas under TERCL Articles 41-45)
B. Electricity Discounts under the Requested Loan Adjustment (RLA)
Program
C. Electricity Discounts under the Emergency Load Reductions (ELR)
Program
D. Export Industry Facility Loans (EIFL) and Specialty Facility
Loans
E. Reserve for Overseas Market
[[Page 53420]]
Development under TERCL Article 17
F. Equipment Investment to Promote Worker's Welfare under TERCL
Article 88
G. Emergency Load Reduction Program
H. Local Tax Exemption on Land Outside of Metropolitan Area
I. Excessive Duty Drawback
J. Private Capital Inducement Act (PCIA)
K. Social Indirect Capital Investment Reserve Funds (Art. 28)
L. Energy-Savings Facilities Investment Reserve Funds (Art. 29)
M. Scrap Reserve Fund
N. Special Depreciation of Assets on Foreign Exchange Earnings
O. Export Insurance Rates Provided by the Korean Export Insurance
Corporation
P. Loans from the National Agricultural Cooperation Federation
Q. Tax Incentives for Highly-Advanced Technology Businesses under
the Foreign Investment and Foreign Capital Inducement Act
IV. Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable
A. Tax Credit for Improving Enterprise's Bill System under Article
7-2 of RSTA
During the POR, POSCO applied for a tax credit under this program.
The GOK states that the program permits any company who uses a modern
corporate billing/promissory note system to make payments for its
purchases from small or medium enterprises to be eligible to claim a
tax credit on its income taxes. The GOK provided the Department with
the language of the regulation, which allows for three possible methods
of payment: (a) issuing a bill of exchange or settling a request for
collection of sale proceeds, (b) using an exclusive-use card for
business purchase, or (c) using a loan system against security of
credit sales claims. The tax credit is calculated as 0.3 percent of
total amount paid pursuant to these methods described, but not
exceeding 10 percent of a company's corporate income tax amount.
We preliminarily determine that the tax credit under Article 7-2 of
RSTA is not de jure specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of
the Act because (1) it is not based on exportation; (2) it is not
contingent on the use of domestic goods over imported goods; and (3)
the legislation and/or regulations do not expressly limit the access to
the subsidy to an enterprise or industry, as a matter of law.
As the Department is preliminarily determining that the tax credit
under Article 7-2 of RSTA is not de jure specific, it must then examine
the program under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. The Department
will determine that the program is de facto specific if the Department
finds that one or more of the following factors exist:
(I) The actual recipients of the subsidy, whether considered on an
enterprise or industry basis, are limited in number.
(II) An enterprise or industry is a predominant user of the
subsidy.
(III) An enterprise or industry receives a disproportionately large
amount of the subsidy.
(IV) The manner in which the authority providing the subsidy has
exercised discretion in the decision to grant the subsidy indicates
that an enterprise or industry is favored over others.
Pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, the Department
preliminarily finds that under the tax credit under Article 7-2 of
RSTA, the actual recipients of the subsidy are not limited in number.
See GOK's December 21, 2005, Submission at Exhibit B-1.
Sections 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) and (III) of the Act direct the
Department to examine whether an enterprise or an industry is a
predominant user of the subsidy or receives a disproportionately large
amount of the subsidy. There is nothing on the record to indicate that
the steel industry received a greater monetary benefit from the program
than did other participants or that the steel industry was a dominant
user or received disproportionate benefits. Rather, the GOK states that
the tax credit is widely available and can be used by any Korean
company, regardless of industry and location, by claiming the tax
credit on the tax return. See GOK's December 21, 2005, Submission, at
12.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the information on the
record does not support a conclusion that the percentage of the
benefits POSCO or the steel industry received were disproportionately
high or that the company or the industry was a dominant user.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the tax credit under Article 7-
2 of RSTA is not de facto specific and is, therefore, not
countervailable.
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for each of the producer/exporters subject to
this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2004, through
December 31, 2004, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for
POSCO to be 0.07 percent ad valorem and preliminary determine the the
net subsidy rate for Dongbu to be 0.39 percent ad valorem, both of
which are de minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final
results, to liquidate shipments of corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, at the rates indicated
above. Also, the Department will instruct CBP to require new cash
deposit rates for estimated countervailing duties of 0.00 percent for
all shipments of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from
POSCO and Dongbu, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the date of publication of the final results of this
administrative review.
We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-
reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide
rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates
that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not
examined in this review, are those established in the most recently
completed administrative proceeding for each company. These rates shall
apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company
assigned these rates is requested.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary
results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must
be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary
results. See 19 CFR 351.309 (c). Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to
arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five
days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise
specified by the Department. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
[[Page 53421]]
argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide
the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal
briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a
public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department
will publish the final results of this administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal
brief or at a hearing.
This administrative review is issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: August 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-14916 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S