65 FR 18307, April 7, 2000
[C-469-804]
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Spain; Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty
order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Spain (64 FR 47767)
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate
substantive comments filed on behalf of the domestic interested
parties, as well as inadequate response from respondent interested
parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited (120-day)
sunset review. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we find
that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the
levels listed below in the section entitled Final Results of the
Review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to
the Department regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999). Guidance on
methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's
conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department Policy
Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'')
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin,
63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Background
On September 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from
Spain (64 FR 47767), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, (``the Act''). The Department received a notice of
intent to participate on behalf of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and
U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation (``domestic interested
parties''), within the applicable deadline (September 15, 1999)
specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.
Domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. producers of a domestic like
product.
On September 20, 1999, we received a request for an extension to
file rebuttal comments from domestic interested parties.\1\ Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the deadline for all
participants eligible to file
[[Page 18308]]
rebuttal comments until October 15, 1999.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See September 20, 1999, Request for an Extension to File
Rebuttal Comments in the Sunset Reviews of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Steel Products from Belgium,
France, Germany, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan and the United
Kingdom: A-583-080, A-423-805, A-427-808, A-428-815, A-428-814, A-
428-816, A-580-815, A-580-816, S-201-809, A-469-803, A-412-814, C-
423-806, C-427-810, C-428-817 (CTL), C-428-817 (CR), C-580-818
(CORE), C-201-810, C-469-804, C-412-815, from Bradford L. Ward,
Dewey Balantine LLP, to Jeffrey A. May, Office of Policy.
\2\ See September 30, 1999, Letter from Jeffrey A. May,
Director, Office of Policy to Michael H. Stein, Dewey Ballantine
LLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 1999, we received a complete substantive response
from domestic interested parties, within the 30-day deadline specified
in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). On September
29, 1999, we received a response from the European Union Delegation of
the European Commission (``EC'') expressing its intent to participate
in this review as the authority responsible for defending the interest
of the Member States of the European Union (see September 29, 1999,
Substantive Response of the EU at 3). On September 30, 1999, we
received a response from the Government of Spain (``GOS'') expressing
its intent to participate in this review, as the government of a
country in which subject merchandise is produced and exported. The GOS
notes that it has in the past participated in this proceeding (see
September 30, 1999, Response of GOS at 2).
The Department did not receive a substantive response from any
foreign producer/exporter of the subject merchandise as defined under
771(9)(A) of the Act. Thus, pursuant to section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) of
the Sunset Regulations, the Department determined the EC's and GOS's
responses to be inadequate for purposes of conducting a full review.
Consequently, on October 21, 1999, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), the Department determined to conduct an expedited
(120-day) sunset review of this order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See October 20, 1999, Memorandum for Jeffrey A. May, Re:
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Flat Plate from Sweden: Adequacy
of Respondent Interested Party Response to the Notice of Initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1,
1995). This review concerns a transition order within the meaning of
section 751(c)(6)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, on December 22, 1999, the
Department determined that the sunset review of cut-to-length carbon
steel flat plate from Spain is extraordinarily complicated, and
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this
review until not later than March 29, 2000, in accordance with section
751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Expedited
Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 71726 (December 22, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Review
The scope of the order covers cut-to-length carbon steel plate
including hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-
rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a
width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and
of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without
patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor
coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon
steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape,
hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic
substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which
exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTS'') under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000,
7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000,
7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000,
7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
and 7212.50.0000. Included in this investigation are flat-rolled
products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have
been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been
bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this investigation is
grade X-70 plate. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in substantive responses by parties to this
sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
(``Decision Memo'') from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy,
Import Administration, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated March 29, 2000, which is hereby adopted by
this notice. The issues discussed in the attached Decision Memo include
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidy and the net
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked.
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum
which is on file in B-099, the Central Records Unit, of the main
Commerce building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/records/
frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order would
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of the subsidy at the
following net countervailable subsidy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net
countervailable
Producer/exporter subsidy
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Producers/Exporters from Spain..................... 36.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature of the Subsidy
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states that,
consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will
provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the
subsidy, and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. Although the programs at issue
do not fall within Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement, some or all of
them could be found to be inconsistent with Article 6.1. For example,
the net countervailable subsidy may exceed five percent. The
Department, however, has no information with which to make such a
calculation; nor do we believe it appropriate to attempt such a
calculation in the course of a sunset review. Moreover, we note that,
as of January 1, 2000, Article 6.1 has ceased to apply (see Article 31
of the Subsidies Agreement). As such, we are providing the Commission
with program descriptions in our Decision Memo.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the
Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms
of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
[[Page 18309]]
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 29, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8694 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P