NOTICES

                        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                    International Trade Administration

                               (C-489-502)

       Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey; Final Results of
                  Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

                           Friday, August 11, 2000

 *49230

 AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
 Department of Commerce.

 ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative review.

 SUMMARY: On April 6, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published
 in the Federal Register its preliminary results of administrative review of the
 countervailing duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and
 tubes) from Turkey for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 (65 FR
 18070). The Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance
 with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For information on the
 net subsidy for each reviewed company, and for all non-reviewed companies, please see
 the Final Results of Review section of this notice. We will instruct the U.S. Customs
 Service (Customs) to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the Final Results of
 Review section of this notice.

 EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2000.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Grossman or Darla Brown, Office of
 AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade
 Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
 NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.

 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Background

 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of
 the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this
 review covers Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S. (BBBF) and Borusan Ihracat Ithalat
 ve Dagitim A.S. (Dagitim), an affiliated trading company that exports BBBF-produced
 subject merchandise to the United States (see Treatment of Trading Company section
 below). This review covers the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 and
 twenty- one (21) programs.
 We published the preliminary results on April 6, 2000 (65 FR 18070). We invited
 interested parties to comment on the results. We received no comments from any of the
 parties.

 Applicable Statute

 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of
 the Act as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1,
 1995. The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with
 section 751(a) of the Act. All citations to the Department's regulations reference 19 CFR
 Part 351 (1999), unless otherwise indicated.

 Scope of the Review

 Imports covered by this review are shipments from Turkey of certain welded carbon
 steel pipe and tube, having an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not more than
 16 inches, of any wall thickness. These products, commonly referred to in the industry as
 standard pipe and tube or structural tubing, are produced to various American Society
 for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications, most notably A-53, A-120, A-135,
 A-500, or A-501. These products are classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
 the United States (HTSUS) as item number 7306.30.10. The HTSUS item numbers are
 provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains
 dispositive.

 Treatment of Trading Company

 During the period of review (POR), BBBF exported subject merchandise to the United
 States through Dagitim, a trading company. A questionnaire response was required from
 Dagitim because the subject merchandise may be subsidized by means of subsidies
 provided to both the producer and the exporter. All subsidies conferred on the
 production and exportation of subject merchandise benefit the subject merchandise even
 if it is exported to the United States by an unaffiliated trading company rather than by the
 producer itself. Therefore, the Department calculates countervailable subsidy rates on
 the subject merchandise by cumulating subsidies provided to the producer, with those
 provided to the exporter. See 19 CFR 351.525.
 Under section 351.107 of the Department's Regulations, when the subject merchandise is
 exported to the United States by a company that is not the producer of the merchandise,
 the Department may establish a "combination" rate for each combination of an exporter
 and supplying producer. However, as noted in the "Explanation of the Final Rules" (the
 Preamble to the Department's Regulations), there may be situations in which it is not
 appropriate or practicable to establish combination rates when the subject merchandise
 is exported by a trading company. In such situations, the Department will make
 exceptions to its combination rate approach on a case-by-case basis. See Antidumping
 Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27303 (May 19, 1997).
 In this review, we determine that it is not appropriate to establish combination rates. This
 determination is based on the fact that the subsidies conferred upon the subject
 merchandise were received by the producer only. Therefore, combination rates would
 serve no practical purpose. Instead, we have only calculated one rate, for BBBF, the
 producer of the subject merchandise.

 Calculation of Benefits

 Despite a persistently high rate of inflation in Turkey, Turkish companies do not index
 any of the figures (other than fixed assets) in their financial statements to account for
 inflation. During the POR, Turkey continued to experience high inflation. Indexing the
 benefit and the sales figures will neutralize any potential distortion in our subsidy
 calculations caused by high inflation and the timing of the receipt of the subsidy.
 Therefore, to calculate the ad valorem subsidy rates, we indexed the benefits (numerator)
 in the month of receipt and indexed the monthly sales (denominator) for each program,
 as we did in Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes and Welded Carbon Steel Line
 Pipe from Turkey; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 64
 FR 44496 (August 16, 1999) (1997 Final Results). See, for discussion, Certain Welded
 Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes and Welded Carbon Steel Line Pipe from Turkey;
 Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 16924
 (April 7, 1999) (1997 Preliminary Results). We indexed the sales values and the benefits
 using the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for manufacturing companies in 1998, as reported
 by the Central Bank of Turkey. 

*49231

 

 Analysis of Programs

 There were no comments submitted to the Department with respect to our preliminary
 results of review; therefore, based upon the questionnaire responses we determine the
 following:

 I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

 A. Programs Previously Determined To Confer Subsidies 

 1. Pre-Shipment Export Credit

 In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred countervailable
 subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the record has not led us to change
 any findings or calculations. Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is 0.12 percent
 ad valorem for BBBF, which remains unchanged from the preliminary results.

 2. VAT Support Program (Incentive Premium on Domestically Obtained Goods)

 In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred countervailable
 subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the record has not led us to change
 any findings or calculations. Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is 0.08
 percent ad valorem for BBBF, which remains unchanged from the preliminary results.

 II. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable

 Special Importance Sector Under Investment Allowances 

 In the preliminary results, we determined that the enabling legislation does not expressly
 limit access to an enterprise or industry; therefore, the subsidy is not de jure specific
 (specific as a matter of law). In addition, we determined that this program is not de facto
 specific and, therefore, is not countervailable. Our review of the record has not led us to
 change any findings or calculations. Therefore, our determination for this program
 remains unchanged.

 III. Programs Determined To Be Not Used

 We have determined that the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did
 not apply for or receive benefits under the following programs during the POR:
 A. Freight Program
 B. Foreign Exchange Loan Assistance
 C. Resource Utilization Support Fund
 D. State Aid for Exports Program
 E. Advance Refunds of Tax Savings
 F. Export Credit Through the Foreign Trade Corporate Companies Rediscount Credit
 Facility (Eximbank)
 G. Past Performance Related Foreign Currency Export Loans (Eximbank)
 H. Export Credit Insurance (Eximbank)
 I. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit Facilities
 J. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of Fixed Expenditures
 K. Fund Based Credit
 L. Investment Allowances (in excess of 30 percent minimum)
 M Resource Utilization Support Premium (RUSP)
 N. Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenues
 O. Regional Subsidies
 1. Additional Refunds of VAT (VAT + 10 percent)
 2. Postponement of VAT on Imported Goods
 3. Land Allocation (GIP)
 4. Taxes, Fees (Duties), Charge Exemption (GIP)

 Final Results of Review

 In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an ad valorem
 subsidy rate for BBBF. For the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, we
 determine the net subsidy for BBBF to be 0.20 percent ad valorem, which is de minimis.
 As provided for in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), any rate less than 0.5 percent ad valorem in an
 administrative review is de minimis. Accordingly, no countervailing duties will be
 assessed. The Department will instruct Customs to liquidate, without regard to
 countervailing duties, shipments of the subject merchandise from BBBF exported on
 or after January 1, 1998, and on or before December 31, 1998. Also, the cash deposit
 required for this company will be zero.
 Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general
 rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures
 for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed
 companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as
 provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally
 cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19
 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be
 assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the
 rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable
 to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that
 company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United States,
 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766
 (CIT 1993). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those covered by
 this review will be unchanged by the results of this review.
 We will instruct Customs 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 non-reviewed companies
 covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently
 completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review has
 not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative
 proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA
 amendments is applicable. See Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; Final Results
 of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997). This rate
 shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate
 is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, the
 assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the
 cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.
 This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
 (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information
 disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
 notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective
 order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO
 is a sanctionable violation.
 This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with
 section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
 Dated: August 4, 2000.

 Richard W. Moreland,

 Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

 [FR Doc. 00-20443 Filed 8-10-00; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P