52974 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

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) (interpreting 19 CFR § 353.22(e),

the antidumping regulation on

automatic assessment, which is

identical to 19 CFR § 355.22(g)).

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 nonreviewed companies at the most recent

company-specific or country-wide rate

applicable to the company. These rates

shall apply to all non-reviewed

companies until a review of a company

assigned these rates is requested. In

addition, for the period January 1, 1995

through December 31, 1995, the

assessment rates applicable to all nonreviewed 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 § 355.34(d). 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 in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: October 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–27031 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–357–005]

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled

Products From Argentina; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On July 17, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

1991 administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on cold-rolled

carbon steel flat-rolled products (coldrolled steel) from Argentina. We have

now completed this review and

determine the total net subsidy to be

0.00 percent ad valorem for Propulsora

and 1.84 percent ad valorem for all

other companies. For further

information on assessment of

countervailing duties, see the Final

Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Herring, Office of CVD/AD

Enforcement VI, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 17, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 38257) the preliminary results of its

1991 administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on cold-rolled

steel from Argentina (49 FR 18006;

April 26, 1984). The Department has

now completed this administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act).

This review involves two producer/

exporters, Sociedad Mixta Siderurgica

(SOMISA) and Propulsora Siderurgica

S.A.I.C. (Propulsora), which accounted

for all exports of the subject

merchandise from Argentina during the

review period, and 20 programs. We

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results; however, no

comments were filed by any interested

party.

On August 1, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

final results of changed circumstances

countervailing duty reviews covering

the orders on leather, wool, oil country

tubular goods, and cold-rolled steel

from Argentina (see Leather From

Argentina, Wool From Argentina, Oil

Country Tubular Goods From Argentina,

and Carbon Steel Cold-Rolled Flat

Products From Argentina; Final Results

of Changed Circumstances

Countervailing Duty Reviews (62 FR

41361)). In these changed circumstances

reviews, the Department determined

that, based upon the ruling of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

in Ceramica Regiomontana v. United

States, 64 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1995), it does not have the authority to

assess countervailing duties on entries

of merchandise covered by this order

occurring on or after September 20,

1991. As a result, the effective date of

the revocation of this CVD order on

cold-rolled flat products from Argentina

is now September 20, 1991. (This order

had already been revoked, effective

January 1, 1995, pursuant to Section 753

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (see

Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Orders 60 FR 40568, August 9, 1995)).

Therefore, the results of this

administrative review will only apply to

entries of the subject merchandise made

between January 1, 1991 and September

19, 1991. (See Final Results of Review

section of this notice).

Applicable Statute

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review

include shipments of Argentine coldrolled carbon steel flat products,

whether or not corrugated or crimped;

whether or not painted or varnished and

whether or not pickled; not cut, not

pressed, and not stamped to nonrectangular shape; not coated or plated

with metal; over 12 inches in width and

under 0.1875 inches in thickness

whether or not in coils; as currently

provided for under the following item

numbers of the HTS: 7209.11.00,

7209.12.00, 7209.13.00, 7209.14.00,

7209.21.00, 7209.22.00, 7209.23.00,

7209.24.00, 7209.31.00, 7209.32.00,

7209.33.00, 7209.34.00, 7209.41.00,

7209.42.00, 7209.43.00, 7209.44.00,

7209.90.00, 7210.70.00, 7211.30.50,

7211.41.70, 7211.49.50, 7211.90.00,

7212.40.50. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for

Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

Pursuant to Ceramica Regiomontana,

S.A. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 431

(CIT 1994), Commerce is required to

calculate a country-wide CVD rate, i.e.,

the all-other rate, by ‘‘weight-averaging
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 52975

the benefits received by all companies

by their proportion of exports to the

United States, inclusive of zero rate

firms and de minimis firms.’’ Therefore,

we first calculated a subsidy rate for

each company subject to the

administrative review. We then weightaveraged the rate received by each

company using as the weight its share

of total Argentine exports to the United

States of subject merchandise. We then

summed the individual companies’

weight-averaged rates to determine the

subsidy rate from all programs

benefitting exports of subject

merchandise to the United States.

Since the country-wide rate

calculated using this methodology was

above de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR

§ 355.7 (1994), we proceeded to the next

step and examined the net subsidy rate

calculated for each company to

determine whether individual company

rates differed significantly from the

weighted-average country-wide rate,

pursuant to 19 CFR § 355.22(d)(3).

Propulsora had a significantly different

net subsidy rate during the review

period pursuant to 19 CFR

§ 355.22(d)(3). Therefore this company

is treated separately for assessment

purposes. All other companies are

assigned the country-wide rate.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined To

Confer Subsidies

1. Government Equity Infusions

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. We did not receive any

comments on this program from the

interested parties, and our review of the

record has not led us to change our

findings from the preliminary results.

On this basis, the net subsidies for this

program are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

(percent)

Propulsora ..................................... 0.00

All Other Companies .................... 1.54

2. Rebate of Indirect Taxes (Reembolso/

Reintegro)

In the preliminary results, we found

that there was no benefit from this

program during the review period. We

did not receive any comments on this

program from the interested parties, and

our review of the record has not led us

to change our findings from the

preliminary results.

B. New Program Found To Confer

Subsidies

Regional Tariff Zones for Natural Gas

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. We did not receive any

comments on this program from the

interested parties, and our review of the

record has not led us to change our

findings from the preliminary results.

On this basis, the net subsidies for this

program are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

(percent)

Propulsora ..................................... 0.00

All Other Companies .................... 0.30

II. Program Found Not To Confer

Subsidies

Preferential Natural Gas Tariffs Under

Resolution 192/91

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program did not confer a

subsidy on the subject merchandise. We

did not receive any comments on this

program from the interested parties, and

our review of the record has not led us

to change our findings from the

preliminary results.

III. Programs Found To Be Not Used

In the preliminary results, we found

that the producers and/or exporters of

the subject merchandise did not apply

for or receive benefits under the

following programs:

1. Preferential Electricity Tariff Rates

2. Privatization Assistance Under Law

23697 and Decree 1144/92

3. Medium- and Long-Term Loans

4. Capital Grants

5. Income and Capital Tax Exemptions

6. Government Trade Promotion

Programs

7. Exemption from Stamp Taxes Under

Decree 186/74

8. Incentives for Trade (Stamp Tax

Exemption Under Decree 716)

9. Incentive for Export

10. Export Financing Under OPRAC 1,

Circular RF–21

11. Pre-Financing of Exports Under

Circular RF–153

12. Loan Guarantees

13. Post-Export Financing Under

OPRAC 1–9

14. Debt Forgiveness

15. Tax Deduction Under Decree 173/85

We did not receive any comments on

these programs from the interested

parties, and our review of the record has

not led us to change our findings from

the preliminary results.

IV. Program Found Not to Exist

Tax Concessions for the Steel Industry

We did not receive any comments on

this program from the interested parties,

and our review of the record has not led

us to change our findings from the

preliminary results.

Final Results of the Review

As discussed above in the

Background section, the Department has

determined that the effective date of the

revocation of the countervailing duty

order on cold-rolled steel is September

20, 1991. Therefore, the results of this

administrative review will only apply to

entries of the subject merchandise made

between January 1, 1991 and September

19, 1991.

For the period of review, we

determine the net subsidy to be 0.00

percent ad valorem for Propulsora and

1.84 percent ad valorem for all other

companies. In accordance with 19 CFR

355.7, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad

valorem is de minimus. The Department

will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate, without regard to

countervailing duties, all entries of

subject merchandise from Propulsora

made between January 1, 1991 and

September 19, 1991. The Department

will also instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess a countervailing duty

of 1.84 percent ad valorem for entries of

subject merchandise from all other

companies made between January 1,

1991 and September 19, 1991. Separate

instructions regarding entries made on

or after September 20, 1991 have

already been sent to Customs. Because

this countervailing duty order has been

revoked, no further instructions will be

sent to Customs regarding cash deposits.

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 355.34(d). 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 in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: October 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–27032 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P