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