19192 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

6As stated above, Shanghai Wells and HK Wells 

comprise a single entity. See Final Results, 77 FR 

at 12554 n. 4. 

Exporter 

Weighted 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., 

Ltd. and/or Hong Kong Wells 

Limited 6 ................................ 0.81 

PRC-Wide Entity ....................... 187.25 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed for these amended final 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice to interested 

parties in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

amended final results of this review. For 

assessment purpose, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where appropriate, we 

calculated an ad valorem rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total entered 

values associated with those 

transactions. For duty-assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem 

rate against the entered customs values 

for the subject merchandise. Where 

appropriate, we calculated a per-unit 

rate for each importer (or customer) by 

dividing the total dumping margins for 

reviewed sales to that party by the total 

sales quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty-assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an importer 

(or customer)-specific assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

assess that importer’s (or customer’s) 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

amended final results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the amended final results 

of this administrative review for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided for by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For 

the exporters listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will be established by the 

amended final results of this review; (2) 

for previously investigated or reviewed 

PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed 

above that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate established in the 

amended final results of this review 

(i.e., 187.25 percent); and (4) for all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise 

which have not received their own rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

These amended final results are 

published in accordance with sections 

751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 23, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7740 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–853] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From India: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

With Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

preliminarily determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

circular welded carbon-quality steel 

pipe (‘‘circular welded pipe’’) from 

India. For information on the estimated 

subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Subler, Thomas Schauer, or 

David Layton, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0189, (202) 482–0410, and (202) 

482–0371, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the Department 

of Commerce’s (‘‘Department’’) notice of 

initiation in the Federal Register. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, 

the United Arab Emirates, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 

76 FR 72173 (November 22, 2011) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’), and the 

accompanying Initiation Checklist. 

On December 16, 2011, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

published its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

of circular welded pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). See Circular 

Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From 

India, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, 

and Vietnam, 76 FR 78313 (December 

16, 2011). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19193 

1Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, 

Wheatland Tube, and United States Steel 

Corporation (collectively, Petitioners). 

On December 6, 2011, Petitioners 1

requested that the Department postpone 

the preliminary determination and 

extend the deadline to submit new 

subsidy allegations. In response to 

Petitioners’ request, on December 19, 

2011, the Department postponed the 

deadline for the preliminary 

determination in this investigation until 

March 26, 2012. See Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United 

Emirates, and Vietnam: Postponement 

of Preliminary Determinations in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 

FR 78615 (December 19, 2011). In 

conjunction with this postponement, 

the Department also postponed the 

deadline for the submission of new 

subsidy allegations until February 15, 

2012. See Memorandum to the File from 

Joshua S. Morris, ‘‘New Subsidy 

Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United 

Emirates, and Vietnam, dated December 

15, 2011. In response to requests from 

Petitioners for additional extensions of 

the deadline for the submission of new 

subsidy allegations, the Department 

subsequently extended this deadline to 

February 24, 2012 and then to February 

28, 2012. See Memorandum to the File 

from Susan Kuhbach, ‘‘New Subsidy 

Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, dated February 6, 2011, and 

Letter to All Interested Parties, dated 

February 24, 2011. 

On December 19, 2011, we selected 

Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. 

(‘‘Lloyds’’) and Zenith Birla Ltd. 

(‘‘Zenith’’) as the mandatory 

respondents in this proceeding. See 

Memorandum to Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India: 

Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ 

dated December 19, 2011. The public 

version of this memorandum and all 

other memoranda referenced in this 

notice are on file electronically via 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit in Room 7046 of the main 

Department building. 

On December 22, 2011, we issued a 

questionnaire to the Government of 

India (‘‘GOI’’). See letter from the 

Department to the GOI, ‘‘Countervailing 

Duty Investigation: Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India,’’ 

dated December 22, 2011. In the cover 

letter of the questionnaire, we 

specifically requested that the GOI 

respond to Section II of the 

questionnaire, which applied to the 

GOI. Further, we instructed the GOI to 

forward the questionnaire to the 

mandatory respondents, Lloyds and 

Zenith. We requested that either the GOI 

or the mandatory respondents submit a 

response to Section III of the 

questionnaire, which applied to the 

mandatory respondents. 

We received responses to the original 

December 22, 2011, questionnaire from 

the GOI on January 30, 2012 (‘‘GQR’’), 

and from Zenith on February 13, 2012 

(‘‘ZQR’’). Supplemental questionnaires 

were sent to the GOI on February 10 and 

March 1, 2012. We received a response 

to the former on March 3, 2012 

(‘‘G1SR’’), and to the latter on March 5, 

2012 (‘‘G2SR’’). We sent supplemental 

questionnaires to Zenith on February 

17, and February 28, 2012, and received 

responses on February 21, 2012 

(‘‘ZSR’’), March 9, 2012 (‘‘Z2SR’’), and 

March 15, 2012 (‘‘Z3SR’’). 

On February 22, 2012, we received 

deficiency comments from Wheatland 

Tube, one of the petitioners, pertaining 

to Zenith’s February 13, 2012, 

questionnaire response. 

On February 28, 2012, Wheatland 

Tube submitted a new subsidy 

allegation requesting the Department 

expand its countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

administrative review to include one 

additional subsidy. On March 16, 2012, 

the Department issued a memorandum 

recommending investigating the new 

subsidy allegation. See Memorandum to 

Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, Office 1 

from David Layton, International Trade 

Analyst, Office 1, ‘‘Analysis of New 

Subsidy Allegations,’’ dated March 16, 

2012. 

We received pre-preliminary 

comments from Wheatland Tube on 

March 19, 2012. 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’), is April 1, 2010, 

through March 31, 2011. GOI and 

Zenith reported this same period as 

their fiscal year. See GQR at 1; see also 

the cover letter of Zenith’s February 13, 

2012, questionnaire response. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations, we set 

aside a period of time in our Initiation 

Notice for parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

publication of that notice. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997), and Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 

72173. On December 5, 2011, SeAH 

Steel VINA Corp. (‘‘SeAH VINA’’), a 

mandatory respondent in the concurrent 

CVD circular welded pipe from Vietnam 

investigation, filed comments arguing 

that the treatment of double and triple 

stenciled pipe in the scope of these 

investigations differs from previous 

treatment of these products under other 

orders on circular welded pipe. 

Specifically, SeAH VINA claims that the 

Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican orders 

on these products exclude ‘‘Standard 

pipe that is dual or triple certified/ 

stenciled that enters the U.S. as line 

pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 

pipelines * * *’’ See, e.g., Certain 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and 

Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 

Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited 

Third Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 66899, 

66900 (Oct. 28, 2011). According to 

SeAH VINA: (i) If the term ‘‘class or 

kind of merchandise’’ has meaning, it 

cannot have a different meaning when 

applied to the same products in two 

different cases; and (ii) the distinction 

between standard and line pipe 

reflected in the Brazil, Korean and 

Mexican orders derives from customs 

classifications administered by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

and, thus, is more administrable. 

On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube 

and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 

Wheatland Tube (collectively, ‘‘certain 

Petitioners’’), responded to SeAH 

VINA’s comments stating that the scope 

as it appeared in the Initiation Notice 

reflected Petitioners’’ intended 

coverage. Certain Petitioners contend 

that pipe that is multi-stenciled to both 

line pipe and standard pipe 

specifications and meets the physical 

characteristics listed in the scope (i.e., is 

32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 

inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has 

a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., 

polyester coated) surface finish; or has 

a threaded and/or coupled end finish) is 

ordinarily used in standard pipe 

applications. Certain Petitioners state 

that, in recent years, the Department has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19194 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

2Finished scaffolding is defined as component 

parts of a final, finished scaffolding that enters the 

United States unassembled as a ‘‘kit.’’ A ‘‘kit’’ is 

understood to mean a packaged combination of 

component parts that contain, at the time of 

importation, all the necessary component parts to 

fully assemble a final, finished scaffolding. 

rejected end-use scope classifications, 

preferring instead to rely on physical 

characteristics to define coverage, and 

the scope of these investigations has 

been written accordingly. Therefore, 

certain Petitioners ask the Department 

to reject SeAH VINA’s proposed scope 

modification. 

We agree with certain Petitioners that 

the Department seeks to define the 

scopes of its proceedings based on the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Moreover, we disagree with SeAH 

VINA’s contention that once a ‘‘class or 

kind of merchandise’’ has been 

established that the same scope 

description must apply across all 

proceedings involving the product. For 

example, as the Department has gained 

experience in administering 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) and CVD 

orders, it has shifted away from end use 

classifications to scopes defined by the 

physical characteristics. Id. Thus, 

proceedings initiated on a given product 

many years ago may have end use 

classifications while more recent 

proceedings on the product would not. 

Compare, e.g., Countervailing Duty 

Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

Canada, 51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) 

(describing subject merchandise as 

being ‘‘intended for use in drilling for 

oil and gas’’) with Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods From the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Countervailing Duty 

Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010) 

(describing the subject merchandise in 

terms of physical characteristics without 

regard to use or intended use). Finally, 

certain Petitioners have indicated the 

domestic industry’s intent to include 

multi-stenciled products that otherwise 

meet the physical characteristics set out 

in the scope. Therefore, the Department 

is not adopting SeAH VINA’s proposed 

modification of the scope. 

Scope of the Investigation 

This investigation covers welded 

carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of 

circular cross-section, with an outside 

diameter (‘‘O.D.’’) not more than 16 

inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall 

thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, 

galvanized, or painted), end finish 

(plain end, beveled end, grooved, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

industry specification (e.g., American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

International (‘‘ASTM’’), proprietary, or 

other) generally known as standard 

pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler 

pipe, and structural pipe (although 

subject product may also be referred to 

as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the 

term ‘‘carbon quality’’ includes products 

in which: (a) Iron predominates, by 

weight, over each of the other contained 

elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 

percent or less, by weight; and (c) none 

of the elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, as indicated: 

(i) 1.80 percent of manganese; 

(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon; 

(iii) 1.00 percent of copper; 

(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum; 

(v) 1.25 percent of chromium; 

(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt; 

(vii) 0.40 percent of lead; 

(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel; 

(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; 

(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; 

(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; 

(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; 

(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; 

(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Subject pipe is ordinarily made to 

ASTM specifications A53, A135, and 

A795, but can also be made to other 

specifications. Structural pipe is made 

primarily to ASTM specifications A252 

and A500. Standard and structural pipe 

may also be produced to proprietary 

specifications rather than to industry 

specifications. Fence tubing is included 

in the scope regardless of certification to 

a specification listed in the exclusions 

below, and can also be made to the 

ASTM A513 specification. Sprinkler 

pipe is designed for sprinkler fire 

suppression systems and may be made 

to industry specifications such as ASTM 

A53 or to proprietary specifications. 

These products are generally made to 

standard O.D. and wall thickness 

combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a 

standard and/or structural specification 

and to other specifications, such as 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

API–5L specification, is also covered by 

the scope of this investigation when it 

meets the physical description set forth 

above, and also has one or more of the 

following characteristics: is 32 feet in 

length or less; is less than 2.0 inches 

(50mm) in outside diameter; has a 

galvanized and/or painted (e.g., 

polyester coated) surface finish; or has 

a threaded and/or coupled end finish. 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include: (a) Pipe suitable for use in 

boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, 

refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, 

whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished 

electrical conduit; (c) finished 

scaffolding; 2 (d) tube and pipe hollows 

for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular 

goods produced to API specifications; (f) 

line pipe produced to only API 

specifications; and (g) mechanical 

tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. 

However, products certified to ASTM 

mechanical tubing specifications are not 

excluded as mechanical tubing if they 

otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., 

outside diameter and wall thickness) of 

standard, structural, fence and sprinkler 

pipe. Also, products made to the 

following outside diameter and wall 

thickness combinations, which are 

recognized by the industry as typical for 

fence tubing, would not be excluded 

from the scope based solely on their 

being certified to ASTM mechanical 

tubing specifications: 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall 

thickness (gage 20) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall 

thickness (gage 14) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall 

thickness (gage 14) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19195 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall 

thickness (gage 11) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall 

thickness (gage 10) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall 

thickness (gage 9) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall 

thickness (gage 9) 

4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall 

thickness (gage 7) 

The pipe subject to this investigation 

is currently classifiable in Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers 

7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 

7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 

7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 

7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under the investigation is 

dispositive. 

Alignment of Final Determination 

On November 22, 2011, the 

Department initiated an AD 

investigation concurrent with this CVD 

investigation of circular welded pipe 

from India. See Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72164 

(November 22, 2011). The scope of the 

merchandise being covered is the same 

for both the AD and CVD investigations. 

On March 23, 2012, Petitioners 

submitted a letter, in accordance with 

section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requesting alignment of the final CVD 

determination with the final 

determination in the companion AD 

investigation. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.210(b)(4), the final CVD 

determination will be issued on the 

same date as the final AD 

determination, which is currently 

scheduled to be issued on August 6, 

2012. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide 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. 

Section 776(b) of the Act 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 explained below, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that application of facts other available 

is warranted and that an adverse 

inference is warranted, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act because, by not 

responding to our requests for 

information, the GOI, Zenith and Lloyds 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of their ability. 

I. Government of India 

The GOI did not provide information 

we requested that is necessary to 

determine whether certain programs 

under investigation constitute 

countervailable subsidies. Specifically, 

for the programs listed below, the GOI 

did not provide the information 

necessary to determine whether the GOI 

provided a financial contribution under 

these programs and whether the 

programs are specific. The GOI provided 

no information based on its contention 

that no respondent used the programs. 

• Government of India Loan 

Guarantees Program. 

• Research and Technology Scheme 

Under Empowered Committee 

Mechanism With Steel Development 

Fund Support. 

• Special Economic Zones (‘‘SEZ’’) 

Programs. 

• Provision of Captive Mining Rights 

for Coal and Iron Ore; the Provision of 

High-Grade Ore for LTAR. 

• Programs Administered by the State 

Government of Maharashtra Programs 

(Except the Value-Added Tax Refunds 

Under State Government of Maharashtra 

Package Scheme) 

CVD investigations necessarily rely on 

information from the government 

regarding the administration of the 

alleged subsidy programs, including 

information on use of the programs by 

the respondents. As our original 

questionnaire to the GOI stated, ‘‘The 

government is responsible for providing 

the information requested (in the 

questionnaire) for each company 

respondent, for each of the respondent’s 

cross-owned companies, and for each 

trading company through which the 

respondent sells subject merchandise to 

the United States.’’ See Section II of the 

questionnaire, dated December 22, 2011, 

at 2. In its original questionnaire 

response, the GOI claimed that the 

respondents did not avail themselves of 

the programs listed above. See GQR at 

77–80 and 95–110. However, it was not 

clear whether the GOI covered the 

respondents’ cross-owned companies in 

its response. 

Accordingly, in our February 10, 

2012, supplemental questionnaire to the 

GOI, we asked the GOI to confirm that 

its responses for the programs listed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19196 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

above covered respondents’ crossowned companies. For example, we 

asked the GOI to ‘‘{c}onfirm that your 

response covers all GOI Loan 

Guarantees that the GOI provided to the 

mandatory respondents (including their 

responding cross-owned companies) on 

loans that were outstanding during the 

POI. Please coordinate with the 

mandatory respondents to obtain the 

names of these cross-owned companies 

if you do not already have them.’’ See 

the Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire to the GOI dated February 

10, 2012, at 6. The GOI responded, 

It has been reported by the Zenith (Birla) 

Ltd. that neither they nor any of their 

crossowned companies has availed of the 

said scheme. The Government of India would 

also like to clarify that this response is based 

solely on the declaration of Zenith (Birla) 

Ltd. as the GOI does not maintain any record 

of the so-called cross-owned companies of 

the mandatory respondents. As regards 

Lloyds Metals & Engineers Ltd., it appears 

that they have since shut down manufacture 

of the Product under Consideration and they 

are not participating in the investigations. 

Therefore, the GOI is in no position to 

provide further answers to the queries of the 

USDOC with regard to the cross-owned 

companies of this particular mandatory 

respondent. 

See the G1SR at, e.g., 9. 

After receiving the G1SR on February 

10, 2012, we received Zenith’s ZQR. As 

we explain in the section below for 

Zenith, Zenith’s response in the ZQR 

indicated that Zenith was cross-owned 

with many other companies. This 

contradicted the GOI’s claim in the GQR 

and G1SR that Zenith had no crossowned companies. 

Accordingly, on March 1, 2012, we 

sent a second supplemental 

questionnaire to the GOI. We noted our 

request to Zenith for responses on 

behalf of certain cross-owned 

companies, and we requested that the 

GOI update its questionnaire responses 

for any subsidies these cross-owned 

companies received. Thus, for any of the 

programs identified above, the GOI 

should have updated its response if any 

responding cross-owned companies 

used the program. 

On March 5, 2012, the GOI responded 

to this supplemental questionnaire. The 

GOI stated the following: 

The response of the GOI to the First 

Supplemental Questionnaire was based on 

the information supplied by Zenith. It is 

presumed that Zenith had included all the 

above companies in their response. The 

Government of India would also like to 

reiterate that this response is also based 

solely on the declaration of Zenith (Birla) 

Ltd. as the GOI does not maintain any record 

of the so-called cross-owned companies of 

the mandatory respondents. GOI has nothing 

further to add. 

See the G2SR at 1. Thus, the GOI did not 

update its original responses by either 

providing information on subsidies that 

the responding cross-owned companies 

received or by stating that none of 

Zenith’s cross-owned companies for 

which we requested a response had 

used the program. 

Further, for the Provision of HotRolled Steel by the Steel Authority of 

India (‘‘SAIL’’) for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’), the GOI 

claimed in both the GQR and the G1SR 

that it had no involvement in the 

purchasing decisions of the mandatory 

respondents and refused to provide any 

information on the program. See GQR at 

18 and G1SR at 16. The GOI did not 

respond to our questions and did not 

respond to our request in the 

supplemental questionnaire to explain 

in detail the efforts it made to obtain 

this necessary information. See G1SR at 

16. 

Finally, for the Provision of Land for 

LTAR, the GOI’s original response 

stated, ‘‘The Government of India does 

not have such information.’’ See GQR at 

27. Because information from the GOI in 

response to the questions from our 

December 22, 2011, questionnaire was 

necessary for our analysis of the 

program, we asked the GOI again to 

answer our original questions. In 

response, the GOI stated, ‘‘State 

governments make provisions of land as 

a part of overall infrastructure 

development and the development of 

industry which cannot be considered as 

a subsidy under the ASCM.’’ See G1SR 

at 26. The GOI did not respond to our 

questions and did not respond to our 

request in the supplemental 

questionnaire to explain in detail the 

efforts it made to obtain this necessary 

information. 

As explained above, section 776(b) of 

the Act 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 AFA 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. The 

Department has determined that an 

adverse inference is warranted, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act 

because, by not responding to our 

requests for information with respect to 

these programs, the GOI failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability. When the government fails to 

provide requested information 

concerning alleged subsidy programs, 

the Department, as AFA, typically finds 

that a financial contribution exists 

under the alleged program and that the 

program is specific. See, e.g., Notice of 

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) 

(unchanged in the Notice of Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 38861 (July 

10, 2006), in which the Department 

relied on adverse inferences in 

determining that the Government of 

Korea directed credit to the steel 

industry in a manner that constituted a 

financial contribution and was specific 

to the steel industry within the meaning 

of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(D)(iii) 

of the Act, respectively). 

Accordingly, as AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that the GOI 

Loan Guarantees program, the Research 

and Technology Scheme Under 

Empowered Committee Mechanism 

with Steel Development Fund Support, 

all of the SEZ Programs, all of the Input 

Programs (including the provision of 

hot-rolled steel by SAIL for LTAR), and 

all of the State Government of 

Maharashtra Programs (including the 

provision of land for LTAR, but with the 

exception of the Value-Added Tax 

(‘‘VAT’’) Refunds under State 

Government of Maharashtra Package 

Scheme) provided a financial 

contribution within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D) of the Act and were 

specific within the meaning of 771(5A) 

of the Act. For further details with 

respect to these programs, see the 

‘‘Analysis of Programs’’ section, below. 

II. Lloyds 

Lloyds did not provide any of the 

information requested by the 

Department that is necessary to 

determine a CVD rate for this 

preliminary determination. Specifically, 

Lloyds did not respond to the 

Department’s December 22, 2011, 

questionnaire. As a result, we have none 

of the required data necessary to 

calculate a subsidy rate for Lloyds. 

Accordingly, in reaching our 

preliminary determination, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 

we have based Lloyds’s CVD rate on 

facts otherwise available. 

The Department has determined that 

an adverse inference is warranted, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act 

because, by not responding to our 

questionnaire, Lloyds failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19197 

3Zenith clarified that the company it referred to 

as ‘‘Birla Group’’ in the ZQR was the same as Yash 

Birla Group (‘‘It is clarified that mention of Birla 

Group here and elsewhere in our earlier response 

refers to Yash Birla Group.’’) See ZSR at 1–2. 

ability. Accordingly, our preliminary 

determination is based on AFA. 

III. Zenith 

Zenith did not provide information 

we requested that is necessary to 

determine a CVD rate for this 

preliminary determination. Specifically, 

among numerous other deficiencies, 

Zenith did not provide complete 

responses with respect to its crossowned companies. 

Our December 22, 2011, questionnaire 

instructed the respondents that they 

must provide a complete questionnaire 

response for all cross-owned affiliates 

that meet one of the following criteria: 

(1) The cross-owned company produces 

the subject merchandise; (2) the crossowned company is a holding company 

or a parent company (with its own 

operations) of the respondent; (3) the 

cross-owned company supplies an input 

product that is primarily dedicated to 

the production of the subject 

merchandise; (4) the cross-owned 

company has received a subsidy and 

transferred it to the respondent; (5) the 

cross-owned company is not a producer 

or manufacturer but provides a good or 

service to the respondent. See Section 

III of the questionnaire dated December 

22, 2011, at 2. Regarding its ownership, 

Zenith initially only reported that it 

‘‘has been a Birla Group Company 

(under the management of Birla family) 

since incorporation in the year 1960.’’ 

See ZQR at 5. Zenith also identified 38 

affiliated companies in its initial 

response, but claimed that none were 

cross-owned companies and provided 

no response for any of them. Id. at 3 and 

Annexure 1. 

On February 17, 2012, we sent a 

supplemental questionnaire to Zenith to 

clarify the relationship between Zenith, 

the affiliated companies Zenith 

identified in Annexure 1 of the ZQR, 

and Birla Group. See the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire dated 

February 17, 2012. In its response 

regarding the relationship of Birla 

Group and Zenith, Zenith stated, ‘‘Since 

Mr. Yashovardhan Birla is heading 

(Zenith) and he controls (Zenith) 

through other his affiliated companies 

and other entities and therefore we 

recognize all these companies and other 

entities as Yash Birla Group.’’ See ZSR 

at 1. Regarding the affiliated companies 

Zenith identified at Annexure 1 of the 

ZQR, Zenith stated, ‘‘it is clarified that 

these all affiliated companies along with 

Zenith Birla (India) Limited is 

controlled and managed by Yash Birla 

Group either through common 

management or by voting rights.’’ 3

Therefore, Zenith’s responses indicate 

that Yash Birla Group, or the 

‘‘companies and other entities’’ that are 

collectively Yash Birla Group, was the 

parent company of Zenith by virtue of 

its control of Zenith. Furthermore, 

Zenith’s responses indicate that Zenith 

was cross-owned with all 38 affiliated 

companies under 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(vi) through Yash Birla 

Group’s common control of Zenith and 

all of its reported affiliates. 

Despite the instructions in the 

December 22, 2011, questionnaire that 

Zenith provide a complete response for 

a parent company (i.e., the second 

criterion indicated above), Zenith did 

not provide a response for the Yash 

Birla Group, or the ‘‘companies and 

other entities’’ that are collectively Yash 

Birla Group. Based on Zenith’s 

responses to the ZQR and ZSR, Yash 

Birla Group is the parent company of 

Zenith by virtue of its control of Zenith. 

In addition, we identified at least three 

other cross-owned companies for which 

Zenith should have provided a response 

based on information in the ZQR and 

ZSR. Zenith acknowledged that one of 

these companies, Birla Power Solutions 

Limited, supplied raw material to 

Zenith during the POI. See ZSR at 2. 

Furthermore, the financial statements 

Zenith submitted with the ZQR indicate 

that Zenith purchased goods and 

services from ‘‘related parties,’’ which 

indicates these related parties 

potentially met the third and fifth 

criteria indicated above from our 

December 22, 2011, questionnaire. See 

ZQR at Annexures 3 though 5 and our 

supplemental questionnaire dated 

February 28, 2012, at 4. 

We sent a second supplemental 

questionnaire to Zenith to request 

responses for all cross-owned 

companies that meet one or more of the 

criteria identified in our December 22, 

2011, questionnaire, as well as to 

address other deficiencies in Zenith’s 

response. Regarding cross-owned 

companies, we requested the following: 

• We stated that Zenith’s responses 

indicated that Yash Birla Group was the 

parent company, either directly or indirectly, 

of Zenith during the POI. Thus, we requested 

a complete questionnaire response on behalf 

of Yash Birla Group or the collective 

‘‘companies and other entities’’ to which 

Zenith referred as Yash Birla Group at page 

1 of the ZSR. 

• We requested a response on behalf of 

Birla Power Solutions Limited, a company 

cross-owned with Zenith through Yash Birla 

Group’s common control. Zenith 

acknowledged in the ZSR that this company 

provided raw materials to Zenith during the 

POI. See ZSR at 2. 

• We requested a response on behalf of 

Birla Global Corporate Pvt. Limited, a crossowned company under Yash Birla Group’s 

common control, because Zenith’s financial 

statements indicated that Zenith had charges 

for services from this company during the 

POI. 

• We requested a complete questionnaire 

response on behalf of Tungabhadra Holdings 

Private Limited (‘‘THPL’’). Zenith’s 

submitted financial statements indicated that 

Zenith merged with THPL in 2009 and that 

THPL was the original owner of two of 

Zenith’s three plants. Thus, subsidies that 

THPL received prior to its merger with 

Zenith would be attributable to Zenith. 

• The financial statements Zenith 

submitted with the ZQR indicated that 

Zenith purchased goods and services from 

‘‘related parties,’’ which indicates that these 

related parties potentially met the third and 

fifth criteria indicated above from our 

December 22, 2011, questionnaire. Therefore, 

we asked Zenith to identify these ‘‘related 

parties’’ and to provide responses on behalf 

of any companies within this group that were 

cross-owned with Zenith through Yash Birla 

Group’s common control. 

We requested that Zenith provide complete 

questionnaire responses for any other crossowned companies that met one or more of 

the criteria identified in our December 22, 

2011, questionnaire. 

For a complete list of the questions, 

see our supplemental questionnaire 

dated February 28, 2012, at 1–5. 

Zenith asked for two extensions of the 

deadline for responding to our February 

28, 2012, supplemental questionnaire. 

See Zenith’s letter entitled ‘‘Extension 

Request’’ dated March 5, 2012, and 

Zenith’s letter dated March 12, 2012. 

Because of the impending fully 

extended deadline for the preliminary 

determination, we were only able to 

grant Zenith a partial extension. See our 

letters to Zenith dated March 6, 2012, 

and March 12, 2012. 

In its response, Zenith filed what it 

claimed was ‘‘a complete response on 

behalf of Yash Birla Group.’’ See Z3SR 

at 1. Zenith filed individual responses 

on behalf of seven individual 

companies, which Zenith described as 

follows: 

We wish to clarify that entities mentioned 

at serial number 1 to 6 were involved in 

manufacturing and export of various 

products but not the subject merchandise and 

all of them have received any of various 

subsidy program as identified by the DOC 

during the POI and therefore we have 

reported separate response for each of them 

and same is enclosed as Annexure-48 to 

Annexure-53. As far as (Birla Global 

Corporate Pvt. Limited) is concerned Zenith 

Birla (India) Limited has paid service charges 

to that entity and therefore we have reported 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

separate response for that entity and same is 

enclosed as Annexure-54. 

Id. at 2. 

Zenith also filed one response that it 

claimed covered 28 other companies. In 

this response, Zenith stated the 

following: 

We further wish to clarify that all other 28 

companies of Yash Birla Group as identified 

in Annexure-56 were neither involved in 

production or sales of subject merchandise 

nor any of them have any export sales and 

therefore in absence of export sales question 

of export subsidy does not arise at all and 

therefore we have reported a single response 

for all these companies as Annexure-55. 

Id. 

Zenith did not provide information 

we requested that is necessary to 

determine a CVD rate for this 

preliminary determination for the 

following reasons. First, we requested 

that Zenith respond on behalf of the 

Yash Birla Group because, as we 

described above, Zenith’s responses 

indicate that Yash Birla Group was the 

parent company to Zenith. See the 

supplemental questionnaire dated 

February 28, 2012, at 1–2. In response, 

Zenith filed incomplete responses on 

behalf of individual companies under 

the control of the Yash Birla Group (see 

below), but filed no response on behalf 

of the Yash Birla Group. See Z3SR at 2. 

Therefore, we have no response for Yash 

Birla Group, which is Zenith’s parent 

company based on Zenith’s responses. 

Consequently, we cannot identify 

subsidies Zenith’s controlling or parent 

company received that may be 

attributable to Zenith under 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(iii). 

Second, we are not able to identify the 

universe of cross-owned companies 

with subsidies attributable to Zenith. 

Although Zenith initially responded 

that it has no cross-owned companies, 

Zenith’s responses revealed that Zenith 

is cross-owned with 38 companies 

through Yash Birla Group’s common 

control. See ZQR at Annexure 1. In 

accordance with the instructions in the 

original questionnaire, Zenith should 

have responded on behalf of any of 

these companies that may have received 

subsidies attributable to Zenith under 

our regulations. For example, subsidies 

to a cross-owned input supplier to 

Zenith are attributable to Zenith under 

19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv) if production 

of the input product is primarily 

dedicated to production of the 

downstream product. As we stated 

above, Zenith’s financial statements 

showed purchases from ‘‘related 

parties,’’ suggesting that Zenith may 

have cross-owned input suppliers with 

subsidies attributable to Zenith under 

19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv). Thus, we 

requested that Zenith identify these 

companies. See the supplemental 

questionnaire dated February 28, 2012, 

at 4. Zenith did not answer this 

question. See Z3SR at 5. Consequently, 

we do not know the universe of crossowned companies for which Zenith 

should have provided questionnaire 

responses, and we do not know the 

universe of subsidies attributable to 

Zenith that these cross-owned 

companies received. 

Third, Zenith’s responses on behalf of 

its cross-owned companies in the Z3SR 

are unusable for the following reasons. 

For 28 of these companies, Zenith 

claimed that none received any of the 

subsidies under investigation. Id. at 

Annexure 56. Zenith, however, argued 

that it was not required to provide 

financial statements or tax returns for 

any of these companies because they 

did have export sales and, thus, the 

question of receiving any subsidy 

benefit was not relevant. Id. Under the 

Department’s regulations, however, the 

universe of cross-owned companies 

receiving subsidies attributable to 

Zenith is not limited to cross-owned 

companies that export. See 19 CFR 

351.525(b) and (c). 

In the individual responses for seven 

specific companies in the Z3SR, Zenith 

failed to provide requested worksheets 

reconciling sales to the financial 

statements. Id. at Annexures 48–54. The 

sales as reported are unusable to 

calculate the level of subsidy benefits if 

they include intercompany sales with 

other responding cross-owned 

companies. Because Zenith did not 

provide the requested reconciliations, 

we cannot determine whether Zenith 

properly excluded these sales. 

Moreover, Zenith did not provide 

requested documentation and benefit 

amounts for the seven individual 

companies in the Z3SR on the grounds 

that any benefits the companies 

received were not related to subject 

merchandise. Id., e.g., at Annexure 48 at 

8. Absent a determination by the 

Department that a subsidy is ‘‘tied’’ to 

a specific product under 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(5), the Department does not 

limit the attribution of a benefit from a 

subsidy program to a specific product. 

The Department bases these 

determinations on information on the 

record, including the questionnaire 

responses of respondent companies. 

Therefore, it is incumbent on Zenith to 

provide information necessary for our 

determination by submitting complete 

and timely responses to the 

Department’s questionnaires. 

Furthermore, Zenith did not respond 

with respect to certain programs on the 

grounds that its cross-owned companies 

had not used the program ‘‘during the 

POI,’’ even though we specifically asked 

for reporting during the entire average 

useful life (‘‘AUL’’) period. Id., e.g., at 

Annexure 48 at 20. 

Also, certain cross-owned companies 

for which Zenith reported no subsidy 

information show subsidies under 

investigation in their annual reports. For 

example, the 2010–2011 Annual Report 

of Birla Precision Technologies Limited 

identifies a Sales Tax Deferred Payment 

Loan, a Mahartasha Value Added Tax 

Credit, an Export Promotion Capital 

Goods Scheme, an Export-oriented Unit, 

and consumption of steel during the POI 

(indicating that this company purchased 

steel during the POI). Id., Annexure 48, 

at 31, 32, and 37. All of these items in 

the Annual Report relate to programs 

under investigation. In its narrative 

response, however, Zenith stated that 

the questions in the questionnaire were 

‘‘not applicable to us’’ and did not 

report any subsidies or answer any of 

the questions from the December 22, 

2011, questionnaire. Id. at 8 and 11. See 

also id. at 17 and 20. 

Finally, Zenith also did not provide a 

complete questionnaire response on 

behalf of itself. Zenith’s financial 

statements show that Zenith merged 

with THPL, which was the previous 

owner of two of Zenith’s three plant 

locations during the POI. See ZQR at 

Annexure 4 at 12. Although Zenith later 

claimed that its response ‘‘includes all 

the benefits received by Tungabhadra 

Holdings Private Limited in the AUL 

period,’’ Zenith provided no requested 

information (such as financial 

statements or description of operations 

or benefits received prior to its 

amalgamation with Zenith in 2009) with 

respect to THPL. This makes it 

impossible to evaluate what subsidies 

THPL may have availed prior to its 

amalgamation with Zenith which could 

potentially be attributable to Zenith. See 

Z3SR at 3. 

Furthermore, Zenith responded that it 

did not purchase land from the GOI 

during the AUL period. Id. at 4. Zenith’s 

response indicates, however, that THPL 

‘‘acquired Murbad property (held by 

Sunlight Pipes and Tubes Private 

Limited) from Andhra Bank in a public 

auction in year 2005.’’ Id. at 4. Publicly 

available information shows that the 

Government of India owned a majority 

of the shares of Andhra Bank in 2005. 

See Memorandum to file, entitled 

‘‘Calculation of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate for Lloyds Metals and 

Engineers Ltd. and Zenith Birla Ltd.,’’ 

dated March 26, 2012, at Attachment III. 

Zenith’s response also indicates that the 

Tarapur plant was ‘‘acquired by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19199 

4See, e.g., Laminated Woven Sacks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and Final 

Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Selection of the Adverse Facts Available.’’ 

5See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 FR 57323 

(October 2, 2008), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Selection of the Adverse 

Facts Available Rate.’’ 

Tungabhadra Holdings Private Limited 

from Podar Tubes and Tyers Private 

Limited and part land (G–39) for 

Tarapur plant were acquired by the 

Tungabhadra Holdings Private Limited 

in a public auction by Debt Recovery 

Tribunal in a year 2003.’’ Id. at 4. 

Publicly available information shows 

that Debt Recovery Tribunals are 

entities constituted by the GOI. See 

Memorandum to file, entitled 

‘‘Calculation of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate for Lloyds Metals and 

Engineers Ltd. and Zenith Birla Ltd.,’’ 

dated March 26, 2012, at Attachment III. 

Thus, Zenith’s claim in the Z3QR that 

its Murbad and Tarapur plants were 

‘‘not acquired from any government 

authority’’ does not take into account 

this information. By not responding to 

the questions regarding land received at 

less than adequate remuneration, Zenith 

prevented us from evaluating whether 

these plants received any subsidies 

which could potentially be attributable 

to Zenith. 

Because of the numerous deficiencies 

identified above, it is impossible to 

calculate a credible subsidy rate based 

on Zenith’s responses. We provided 

Zenith two chances, including multiple 

deadline extensions, to provide a 

complete questionnaire response. 

Zenith filed no notification of difficulty 

in responding to the questionnaire 

within 14 days of the date of receipt of 

the questionnaire, as required by our 

regulations and the questionnaire. See 

Section III of the questionnaire dated 

December 22, 2011, at 3; see also 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(2)(iv). Accordingly, in 

reaching our preliminary determination, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) 

of the Act, we have based Zenith’s CVD 

rate on facts otherwise available. 

Moreover, Zenith’s failure to provide 

complete responses, as described above, 

despite our repeated requests for such 

responses, constitutes a failure on 

Zenith’s part to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability. Accordingly, 

our preliminary determination is based 

on AFA. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the rate is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Static Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors From Taiwan; 63 FR 

8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that 

the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 

103d Cong., 2d Session (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), 

at 870. In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing a respondent 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United 

States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 

1990). 

In assigning net subsidy rates for each 

of the programs for which specific 

information was required from Lloyds 

and Zenith, we were guided by the 

Department’s approach in prior India 

CVD reviews as well as recent CVD 

investigations involving the People’s 

Republic of China. See, e.g., Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from India: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 20923 

(May 6, 2009) (‘‘Fifth HRS Review’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Fifth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum’’), at ‘‘SGOC 

Industrial Policy 2004–2009’’ section; 

see also Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 74 FR 4936 (January 28, 

2009), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Application 

of Facts Available and Use of Adverse 

Inferences’’ section. 

It is the Department’s practice in CVD 

proceedings to select, as AFA, the 

highest calculated rate in any segment 

of the proceeding.4 In previous CVD 

investigations of products from India, 

we adapted the practice to use the 

highest rate calculated for the same or 

similar program in another India CVD 

proceeding. Thus, under this practice, 

for investigations involving India, the 

Department computes the total AFA rate 

for non-cooperating companies 

generally using program-specific rates 

calculated for the cooperating 

respondents in the instant investigation 

or calculated in prior India CVD cases. 

Specifically, for programs other than 

those involving income tax exemptions 

and reductions, the Department applies 

the highest calculated rate for the 

identical program in the investigation if 

a responding company used the 

identical program, and the rate is not 

zero. If there is no identical program 

within the investigation, the Department 

uses the highest non-de minimis rate 

calculated for the same or similar 

program (based on treatment of the 

benefit) in another India CVD 

proceeding. Absent an above-de 

minimis subsidy rate calculated for the 

same or similar program, the 

Department applies the highest 

calculated subsidy rate for any program 

otherwise listed that could conceivably 

be used by the non-cooperating 

companies.5

In this case, there is no appropriate 

information on the record of this 

investigation from which to select 

appropriate AFA rates for any of the 

subject programs. Although Zenith 

provided some information for some of 

the programs with respect to itself, it 

provided no usable information on 

subsidies received with respect to any of 

its cross-owned companies, which 

means we cannot ascertain the total 

amount of subsidies attributable to 

Zenith’s sales. As a result, it is not 

possible for us to calculate an accurate 

subsidy rate for any of the programs 

alleged. Furthermore, because this is an 

investigation, we have no previous 

segments of this proceeding from which 

to draw potential AFA rates. 

For the alleged income tax programs 

pertaining to either the reduction of the 

income tax rates or the payment of no 

income tax, we have applied an adverse 

inference that the respondents paid no 

income tax during the POI. The 

standard income tax rate for 

corporations in India is 35 percent. See 

the petition dated October 26, 2011, at 

Exhibit III–A–18. Therefore, the highest 

possible benefit for the income tax rate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19200 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

6See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 

FR 37012, 37013 (July 27, 2009); see also Sodium 

Nitrite From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 

FR 38981, 38982 (July 8, 2008). 

programs is 35 percent. We are applying 

the 35 percent AFA rate on a combined 

basis (i.e., the income tax programs 

combined provided a 35 percent 

benefit). 

For programs other than those 

involving income tax exemptions and 

reductions, we applied the highest nonde minimis rate calculated for the same 

or similar program in another India CVD 

proceeding. Absent an above-de 

minimis subsidy rate calculated for the 

same or similar program, we applied the 

highest calculated subsidy rate for any 

program otherwise listed that could 

conceivably be used by the mandatory 

company respondents.6

For a discussion of the application of 

the individual AFA rates for programs 

preliminarily determined to be 

countervailable, see the ‘‘Analysis of 

Programs’’ section, below. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

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 

‘‘information 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 SAA at 870. The SAA provides that 

to ‘‘corroborate’’ secondary information, 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See SAA at 870. 

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. See SAA at 

869–870. 

With regard to the reliability aspect of 

corroboration, 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 

company-specific benefits resulting 

from countervailable subsidy programs. 

With respect to the relevance aspect of 

corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal in considering the relevance of 

information used to calculate a 

countervailable subsidy benefit. The 

Department will not use information 

where circumstances indicate that the 

information is not appropriate as AFA. 

See, e.g., 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 relevance 

of the information relied upon in a prior 

India CVD proceeding. Therefore, in the 

instant case, the Department 

preliminarily finds that the information 

used has been corroborated to the extent 

practicable. 

Analysis of Programs 

A. Export Oriented Unit Schemes 

1. Duty-Free Import of All Types of 

Goods, Including Capital Goods and 

Raw Materials 

The GOI reported that an export 

oriented unit (‘‘EOU’’) ‘‘may import 

without payment of duty all types of 

goods, including capital goods and raw 

material, as defined in the Policy, 

required by it for manufacture, services, 

trading or in connection therewith.’’ See 

GQR at 26. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI also 

reported that ‘‘{u}nits undertaking to 

export their entire production of goods 

and services, except permissible sales in 

the Domestic Tariff Area, as per this 

policy, may be set up under the EOU 

Scheme for manufacture of goods.’’ See 

GQR at 26. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 14.61 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Notice of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip (PET Film) From India, 67 FR 

34905 (May 16, 2002) (‘‘PET Film 

Investigation’’), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(‘‘PET Film Investigation Decision 

Memorandum’’) at the ‘‘DEPS’’ section. 

2. Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax 

(‘‘CST’’) Paid on Goods Manufactured in 

India 

The GOI reported that ‘‘Export 

Oriented Units (EOUs) and units in 

Export Processing Zones (EPZs), 

Electronic Hardware Technology Park 

(EHTP), Software Technology Park 

(STP) and Special Economic Zones 

(SEZ) will be entitled to full 

reimbursement of Central Sales Tax 

(CST) paid by them on purchases made 

from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), for 

production of goods and services as per 

Exim Policy.’’ See GQR at 27. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that this program provides a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI 

also reported that ‘‘{u}nits undertaking 

to export their entire production of 

goods and services, except permissible 

sales in the Domestic Tariff Area, as per 

this policy, may be set up under the 

EOU Scheme for manufacture of goods.’’ 

See GQR at 26. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19201 

Flat Products from India, 71 FR 28665 

(May 17, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(‘‘Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum’’) at the ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat Tax Incentives’’ 

section. 

3. Duty Drawback on Fuel Procured 

From Domestic Oil Companies 

The GOI reported that ‘‘{f}uels 

procured from the depots of domestic 

oil companies on payment of excise 

duty by EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP will be 

eligible for reimbursement in the form 

of terminal excise duty in addition to 

drawback rates notified by DGFT from 

time to time provided the recipient unit 

does not avail CENVAT credit/rebate on 

such goods.’’ See GQR at 27–28. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that this program provides a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI 

also reported that ‘‘{u}nits undertaking 

to export their entire production of 

goods and services, except permissible 

sales in the Domestic Tariff Area, as per 

this policy, may be set up under the 

EOU Scheme for manufacture of goods.’’ 

See GQR at 26. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 14.61 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘DEPS’’ 

section. 

4. Exemption From Income Tax Under 

Section 10A and 10B of Income Tax Act 

The GOI reported that ‘‘Section 10A 

of the Income-tax Act provides for a 

five-year total tax holiday to industrial 

undertakings which manufacture or 

produce any article or thing and are set 

up in notified Free Trade Zones (FTZs)’’ 

and that ‘‘section 10B of the Income-tax 

Act allows a five-year tax holiday to 

approved 100% export-oriented 

undertakings (EOUs) which 

manufacture or produce any article or 

thing.’’ See GQR at 28. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI also 

reported that ‘‘{u}nits undertaking to 

export their entire production of goods 

and services, except permissible sales in 

the Domestic Tariff Area, as per this 

policy, may be set up under the EOU 

Scheme for manufacture of goods.’’ See 

GQR at 26. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

As explained above, for the alleged 

income tax programs pertaining to 

either the reduction of the income tax 

rates or the payment of no income tax, 

we are applying the 35 percent AFA rate 

on a combined basis (i.e., the income tax 

programs combined provided a 35 

percent benefit). 

5. Exemption From Payment of Central 

Excise Duty on Goods Manufactured in 

India and Procured From a Domestic 

Tariff Area 

The GOI reported that ‘‘{t}he EOUs 

can procure goods from DTA without 

payment of Central Excise duty subject 

to following of the Chapter X procedure 

of erstwhile Central Excise Rules.’’ See 

GQR at 29. Most of the products 

manufactured in India are assessed 

excise duties at the rate of 16 percent. 

However, manufactured goods 

purchased domestically qualify for 

exemption from this excise duty under 

this program. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI also 

reported that ‘‘{u}nits undertaking to 

export their entire production of goods 

and services, except permissible sales in 

the Domestic Tariff Area, as per this 

policy, may be set up under the EOU 

Scheme for manufacture of goods.’’ See 

GQR at 26. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 14.61 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘DEPS’’ 

section. 

6. Reimbursement of CST on Goods 

Manufactured in India and Procured 

From a Domestic Tariff Area 

The GOI reported that ‘‘{t}he EOUs 

can procure goods from DTA without 

payment of Central Excise duty subject 

to following of the Chapter X procedure 

of erstwhile Central Excise Rules.’’ See 

GQR at 29. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI also 

reported that ‘‘{u}nits undertaking to 

export their entire production of goods 

and services, except permissible sales in 

the Domestic Tariff Area, as per this 

policy, may be set up under the EOU 

Scheme for manufacture of goods.’’ See 

GQR at 26. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19202 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

7The GOI subsequently acknowledged that 

Zenith used Advanced Authorization licenses 

during the POI that were issued before the POI. See 

G1SR at response to Question 18. 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State Government 

of Gujarat Tax Incentives’’ section. 

B. Export Promotion Capital Goods 

Scheme 

The GOI reported that ‘‘{t}he scheme 

allows import of capital goods for pre 

production, production and post 

production at 5% Customs duty subject 

to an export obligation equivalent to 8 

times of duty saved on capital goods 

imported under EPCG scheme to be 

fulfilled over a period of 8 years 

reckoned from the date of issuance of 

license.’’ See GQR at 41. Thus, under 

this program, Indian companies may 

import capital equipment at reduced 

rates by fulfilling certain export 

obligations. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Moreover, 

because this duty reduction is subject to 

an export obligation, we preliminarily 

determine that this program is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 16.63 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From India, 66 FR 49635 

(September 28, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘HRS Investigation 

Decision Memorandum’’) at the ‘‘Export 

Promotion for Capital Goods (EPCGS) 

Scheme’’ section. 

C. Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes 

1. Advance License Program 

The GOI reported that ‘‘{a}n Advance 

Authorization is issued to allow duty 

free import of inputs, which are 

physically incorporated in export 

product (making normal allowance for 

wastage). In addition, fuel, oil, energy, 

catalysts which are consumed/utilized 

to obtain export product, may also be 

allowed.’’ See GQR at 45. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI also 

reported that ‘‘{d}uty free import of 

mandatory spares up to 10% of CIF 

value of Authorization which are 

required to be exported/supplied with 

resultant product are allowed under 

Advance Authorization.’’ See GQR at 

26. Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that this program is 

contingent upon export and, therefore, 

is specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

The GOI initially claimed that the 

respondents had not availed themselves 

of any benefits under this program. See 

GQR at 47. Zenith reported that it used 

this program. See ZQR at 12–14.7

However, for Zenith, we cannot 

determine the level of benefit within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act 

because Zenith did not report necessary 

information for its cross-owned 

companies. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith with respect to its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, we 

find that Zenith and Lloyds used and 

benefitted from this program within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 0.50 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From India: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 40295 

(July 14, 2008) (‘‘Fourth HRS Review’’) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum’’) at the 

‘‘Advance License Program (ALP)’’ 

section. 

2. Duty Free Import Authorization 

Scheme 

The GOI reported that ‘‘DFIA is issued 

to allow duty free import of inputs, fuel, 

oil, energy sources, catalyst which are 

required for production of export 

product.’’ See GQR at 46. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Moreover, 

because this program is limited to 

exports, we preliminarily determine that 

this program is contingent upon export 

and, therefore, is specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the 

Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 0.50 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘Advance License 

Program (ALP)’’ section. 

3. Duty Entitlement Passbook (‘‘DEP’’) 

Scheme 

The GOI reported that the 

‘‘{o}bjective of DEPB is to neutralize 

incidence of customs duty on import 

content of export product.’’ See GQR at 

46. Under this program, exporting 

companies earn import duty exemptions 

in the form of passbook credits rather 

than cash. All exporters are eligible to 

earn DEP credits on a post-export basis. 

DEP credits can be applied to 

subsequent imports of any materials, 

regardless of whether they are 

consumed in the production of an 

exported product. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19203 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Moreover, 

because this program is limited to 

export product, we determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Zenith reported that it used this 

program. See ZQR at 15–17. However, 

for Zenith, we cannot determine the 

level of benefit within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(E) of the Act because 

Zenith did not report necessary 

information for its cross-owned 

companies. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith with respect to its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, we 

find that Zenith and Lloyds used and 

benefitted from this program within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 14.61 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘DEPS’’ 

section. 

D. Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment 

Export Financing 

The GOI reported that the Reserve 

Bank of India ‘‘sets the ceiling interest 

rate that banks may charge under the 

Preshipment Export Financing Scheme 

through circulars that are issued 

periodically.’’ See GQR at 55. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that the GOI’s issuance of 

financing at preferential rates 

constituted a financial contribution 

pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 

Act. The GOI also reported that 

‘‘{e}ligibility for export finance is 

contingent upon export performance.’’ 

See GQR at 56. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program is contingent upon export and, 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Zenith reported that it used this 

program. See ZQR at 17–19. However, 

for Zenith, we cannot determine the 

level of benefit within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(E) of the Act because 

Zenith did not report necessary 

information for its cross-owned 

companies. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith with respect to its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, we 

find that Zenith and Lloyds used and 

benefitted from this program within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 2.90 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘PreShipment and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing’’ section. 

E. Market Development Assistance 

The GOI reported that ‘‘{r}ecognised 

Export Promotion Councils (EPCs) on 

product grouping basis, Commodity 

Boards and Export Development 

Authorities are eligible for MDA 

assistance for development and 

promotional activities to promote 

exports of their products and 

commodities from India. All exporters 

are eligible for assistance under MDA 

scheme for bonafide overseas marketing 

promotion activities to explore new 

markets for export of their specific 

product(s) and commodities from India 

in the initial phase through activities 

like participation in trade fairs/ 

exhibitions/BSMs/Trade Delegations 

and publicity through printed material 

abroad.’’ See GQR at 63. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a direct financial 

contribution within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. 

Moreover, because this program is 

limited to exporters, we determine that 

this program is contingent upon export 

and, therefore, is specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the 

Act. 

Zenith reported that it used this 

program. See Z2SR at 10. However, for 

Zenith, we cannot determine the level of 

benefit within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act because Zenith did 

not report necessary information for its 

cross-owned companies. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith with respect to its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, we 

find that Zenith and Lloyds used and 

benefitted from this program within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘The GOI’s 

Forgiveness of SDF Loans Issued to 

SAIL’’ section. 

F. Market Access Initiative 

The GOI reported that ‘‘Market Access 

Initiatives (MAI) Scheme is an Export 

Promotion Scheme envisaged to act as a 

catalyst to promote India’s export on a 

sustained basis. The scheme is 

formulated on focus product-focus 

country approach to evolve specific 

market and specific product through 

market studies/survey. Assistance 

would be provided to Export Promotion 

Organizations/Trade Promotion 

Organizations/National Level 

Institutions/Research Institutions/ 

Universities/Laboratories, Exporters, 

etc., for enhancement of export through 

accessing new markets or through 

increasing the share in the existing 

markets.’’ See GQR at 70. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a direct financial 

contribution within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. 

Moreover, because this program is 

limited to exporters, we preliminarily 

determine that this program is 

contingent upon export and, therefore, 

is specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith, including its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19204 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘The GOI’s 

Forgiveness of SDF Loans Issued to 

SAIL’’ section. 

G. Government of India Loan 

Guarantees 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

India: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

43488 (July 26, 2010) (‘‘Sixth HRS 

Review’’), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (‘‘Sixth HRS 

Review Decision Memorandum’’). 

Specifically, the Department determined 

that the GOI’s loan guarantees under 

this program provide a financial 

contribution in the form of a potential 

direct transfer of funds or liabilities and 

are specific to a limited number of 

industries within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 

respectively. Id. No new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been provided with respect to this 

program. Therefore, as AFA, we find 

this program to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith, including its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 2.90 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘PreShipment and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing’’ section. 

H. Status Certificate Program 

The GOI reported that ‘‘{t}he 

objective of the scheme is to recognize 

established exporters as Export House, 

Trading House, Star Trading House and 

Super Star Trading House with a view 

to building marketing infrastructure and 

expertise required for export 

promotion,’’ and that ‘‘{t}he amount of 

the assistance provided is determined 

solely by established criteria found in 

the law, regulation or other official 

document.’’ See GQR at 81 and 85, 

respectively. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a direct financial 

contribution within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. The GOI 

also reported that ‘‘{t}he eligibility 

criterion for such recognition shall be 

on the basis of the FOB/NFE value of 

export of goods and services.’’ See GQR 

at 81. Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that this program is 

contingent upon export and, therefore, 

is specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(B) of the Act. 

Zenith reported that it used this 

program. See Z2SR at 11. However, for 

Zenith, we cannot determine the level of 

benefit within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act because Zenith did 

not report necessary information for its 

cross-owned companies. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith with respect to its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, we 

find that Zenith and Lloyds used and 

benefitted from this program within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 2.90 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘PreShipment and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing’’ section. 

I. Steel Development Fund Loans 

The GOI reported that ‘‘Steel 

Development Fund (SDF) was created in 

1978 to add an element to the ex-works 

prices of the main producers’’ and that 

‘‘{t}his fund thus provides financial 

assistance to the industry from the 

interest of SDF corpus for taking up 

projects like, technology upgradation, 

measures connected with pollution 

control, activities related to Research & 

Development.’’ See GQR at 81 and 85, 

respectively. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that the GOI’s 

provision of Steel Development Fund 

loans under this program provide a 

financial contribution in the form of a 

direct transfer of funds within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 

Act. Moreover, because this program is 

limited to a single industry, we 

preliminarily find it to be specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 0.99 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Loan from the Steel 

Development Fund (SDF) Fund’’ 

section. 

J. Research and Technology Scheme 

Under Empowered Committee 

Mechanism With Steel Development 

Fund Support 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. According to Petitioners’ 

allegation, the GOI has set aside certain 

funds, from the interest proceeds of the 

Steel Development Fund loans to be 

used for the financing of research and 

development proposals received from 

the iron and steel industry and that the 

assistance is likely in the form of grants 

or loans. Based on the description 

alleged in the petition, as AFA, we 

determine that this program provides a 

financial contribution in the form of a 

direct transfer of funds within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 

Act. In addition, as AFA, we determine 

that this program is specific to an 

industry within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19205 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 0.99 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Loan from the Steel 

Development Fund (SDF) Fund’’ 

section. 

K. Special Economic Zones (‘‘SEZ’’) 

Programs 

1. Duty-Free Importation of Capital 

Goods and Raw Materials, Components, 

Consumables, Intermediates, Spare Parts 

and Packing Material 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

From India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty New Shipper 

Review, 76 FR 30910 (May 27, 2011) 

(‘‘PET Film NSR’’) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(‘‘PET Film NSR Decision 

Memorandum’’). Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution pursuant to section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act through the 

foregoing of duty payments. Id. The 

Department also determined that 

program is specific within the meaning 

of sections 771(5A)(A) and (B) of the 

Act. Id. No new information or evidence 

of changed circumstances has been 

provided with respect to this program. 

Therefore, as AFA, we find this program 

to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 14.61 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘DEPS’’ 

section. 

2. Exemption From Payment of CST on 

Purchases of Capital Goods and Raw 

Materials, Components, Consumables, 

Intermediates, Spare Parts and Packing 

Material 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution that is specific within the 

meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Id. 

No new information or evidence of 

changed circumstances has been 

provided with respect to this program. 

Therefore, as AFA, we find this program 

to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 0.53 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Pet Film NSR Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Exemption from 

Payment of Central Sales Tax (CST) on 

Purchases of Capital Goods and Raw 

Materials, Components, Consumables, 

Intermediates, Spare Parts and Packing 

Material’’ section. 

3. Exemption From Electricity Duty and 

Cess Thereon on the Sale or Supply to 

the SEZ Unit 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See PET Film NSR 

and PET Film NSR Decision 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that the 

electricity duty and cess exemptions 

provide a financial contribution in the 

form of revenue foregone by the State 

Government of Madhya Pradesh 

pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the 

Act. Id. The Department also 

determined that program is specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5A)(A) and (B) of the Act. Id. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State Government 

of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ 

section. 

4. SEZ Income Tax Exemption Scheme 

(Section l0A) 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See PET Film NSR 

and PET Film NSR Decision 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that the GOI 

provides a financial contribution in the 

form of revenue forgone pursuant to 

section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Id. The 

Department also determined that 

program is specific within the meaning 

of sections 771(5A)(A) and (B) of the 

Act. Id. No new information or evidence 

of changed circumstances has been 

provided with respect to this program. 

Therefore, as AFA, we preliminarily 

find this program to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19206 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

As explained above, for the alleged 

income tax programs pertaining to 

either the reduction of the income tax 

rates or the payment of no income tax, 

we are applying the 35 percent AFA rate 

on a combined basis (i.e., the income tax 

programs combined provided a 35 

percent benefit). 

5A. Discounted Land and Related Fees 

in an SEZ 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously countervailed discounted 

land fees in the state of Madhya 

Pradesh. See PET Film NSR and PET 

Film NSR Decision Memorandum. 

Specifically, the Department determined 

that the State Government of the State 

of Madhya Pradesh provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) 

of the Act. Id. The Department also 

determined that program is specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5A)(A) and (B) of the Act. Id. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State Government 

of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ 

section 

5B. Land Provided at LTAR in an SEZ 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. According to Petitioners’ 

allegation, under the authority of the 

GOI’s Land Act, land is provided at 

LTAR to investors who locate in the 

SEZs. Based on the description alleged 

in the petition, as AFA, we determine 

that this program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of land sold for 

LTAR within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act. In addition, as 

AFA, we determine that this program is 

specific within the meaning of sections 

771(5A)(A) and (B) of the Act consistent 

with the other SEZ programs. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘Captive Mining 

Rights of Iron Ore’’ section. 

L. Input Programs 

1. Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel by the 

Steel Authority of India for LTAR 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. According to Petitioners’ 

allegation, the SAIL is a government 

authority and is likely to supply hotrolled steel, the primary input in the 

production of subject merchandise, for 

LTAR. Based on the description alleged 

in the petition, as AFA, we determine 

that this program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good as defined under section 

771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act. In addition, as 

AFA, we determine that this program is 

specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the 

actual recipients are limited to 

industries that use hot-rolled steel. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 16.14 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fifth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of High-Grade 

Iron Ore for LTAR’’ section. 

2. Provision of Captive Mining Rights 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good and is specific to a limited 

number of industries within the 

meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 

respectively. Id. No new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been provided with respect to this 

program. Therefore, as AFA, we find 

this program to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fourth HRS Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘Captive Mining of 

Iron Ore’’ section. 

3. Captive Mining Rights of Coal 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good and is specific to a limited 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19207 

number of industries within the 

meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 

respectively. Id. No new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been provided with respect to this 

program. Therefore, we continue to find 

this program to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fourth HRS Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Captive Mining 

Rights of Coal’’ section. 

4. Provision of High-Grade Ore for 

LTAR 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that the GOI 

continues to provide a direct financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good as defined under section 

771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act, which is 

specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the 

actual recipients are limited to 

industries that use iron ore, including 

the steel industry. Id. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 16.14 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fifth HRS Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of High-Grade 

Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ section. 

M. State Government of Maharashtra 

(‘‘SGOM’’) Programs 

1. Sales Tax Program 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific because it is 

limited to only those companies 

investing in a specified developing area 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 

Act, respectively. Id. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Zenith reported that it ‘‘availed sales 

tax deferred payment loan facility from 

State Government of Maharashtra before 

the POI.’’ See ZQR at 32. However, for 

Zenith, we cannot determine the level of 

benefit within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act because Zenith did 

not report necessary information for its 

cross-owned companies. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith with respect to its cross-owned 

companies, we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 0.59 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for the same program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘State Government of 

Maharashtra (SGOM) Programs Sales 

Tax Program’’ section. 

2. VAT Refunds Under SGOM Package 

Scheme 

The GOI reported that ‘‘Any industry 

new or expansion fulfilling the 

eligibility criteria (Para 3.5, 3.6 & 3.10 

of the Scheme) are granted incentives in 

accordance with the classification of the 

block/taluka in which it is located.’’ See 

GQR at 113. Under the Maharashtra 

Package Scheme of Incentives and the 

Maharashtra New Package Scheme of 

Incentives, the SGOM offered tax 

incentives including VAT tax refunds to 

companies that are located or invested 

in certain developing areas in the State 

of Maharashtra. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The GOI also 

reported that ‘‘{t}he main objective of 

the Scheme is to encourage dispersal of 

industries to the industrially less 

developed areas of the State so as to 

achieve higher and sustainable 

economic development with balance 

regional development. The talukas/ 

blocks in the State are classified in to 

{sic} six (06) zones depending up on 

their industrial backwardness. The 

graded scale of incentives are offered to 

the industrial units being set up in such 

backward areas with a view to 

compensate their difficulties faced by 

them on account of gap in infrastructure 

facilities vis-a-vis the developed areas of 

the State.’’ See GQR at 111. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that this program is limited to 

only those companies investing in a 

specified developing area and, therefore, 

is specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19208 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State Government 

of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ 

section. 

3. Electricity Duty Scheme Under 

Package Scheme Incentives 1993 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and are regionally specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 

Act, respectively. Id. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State Government 

of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ 

section. 

4. Octroi Refunds 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that the indirect 

tax savings under this program provide 

a financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and are regionally 

specific within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 

Act, respectively. Id. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State Government 

of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ 

section. 

5. Octroi Loan Guarantees 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined the SGOM’s 

loan guarantees under this program 

provide a financial contribution within 

the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of 

the Act through a potential direct 

transfer of the Octroi refund to pay off 

loans. Id. The Department also found 

that these loan guarantees are specific 

within the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) 

of the Act because only companies 

eligible for the Octroi scheme can 

receive these loan guarantees. Id. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 2.90 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘PreShipment and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing’’ section. 

6. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega 

Projects 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that the 

program constituted a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. The 

Department also found that the program 

is limited to firms investing in MegaProjects and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, as 

AFA, we find this program to be 

countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning net 

subsidy rates of 3.09 percent ad valorem 

for indirect tax and 6.06 for grants 

percent ad valorem, which correspond 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rates calculated for similar programs in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State Government 

of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ 

section and HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘The GOI’s 

Forgiveness of SDF Loans to SAIL’’ 

section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19209 

7. Provision of Land for LTAR 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of land sold for 

LTAR within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act. Id. The 

Department also found that the program 

is limited to enterprises purchasing land 

outside of the Bombay and Pune area, 

and therefore, is specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 

Act. Id. No new information or evidence 

of changed circumstances has been 

provided with respect to this program. 

Therefore, as AFA, we find this program 

to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Captive Mining 

Rights of Iron Ore’’ section. 

8. Investment Subsidies 

The GOI did not respond to our 

requests for information with respect to 

this program. The Department has 

previously determined that this program 

is countervailable. See, e.g., Sixth HRS 

Review and Sixth HRS Review 

Memorandum. Specifically, the 

Department determined that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds within the meaning of 

section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. The 

Department also found that the program 

is limited to firms operating outside of 

the Bombay and Pune metropolitan 

areas and thus, is specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 

Act. Id. No new information or evidence 

of changed circumstances has been 

provided with respect to this program. 

Therefore, as AFA, we find this program 

to be countervailable. 

Absent the cooperation of Lloyds and 

Zenith (including its cross-owned 

companies), we preliminarily determine 

that the respondents’ submissions do 

not constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

N. Waiving of Interest on Loan by the 

State Industrial and Investment 

Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd 

(‘‘SICOM’’) 

In prior investigations, the 

Department has determined that SICOM 

is a public body and found that waived 

interest on ‘‘intercorporate deposits’’ 

was countervailable. See PET Film 

Investigation and PET Film 

Investigation Decision Memorandum. 

Specifically, the Department determined 

that a financial contribution was 

provided by SICOM, a public entity, 

pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 

Act, in the amount of the waived 

interest. Id. The Department also found 

that the waived interest was specific to 

the respondent pursuant to section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, we 

find this program to be countervailable. 

We initiated an investigation into this 

program on March 16, 2012. See 

Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, 

Director, Office 1, ‘‘Analysis of New 

Subsidy Allegation,’’ dated March 16, 

2012. Although we did not send a 

questionnaire to Zenith on this program 

prior to this preliminary determination, 

Zenith’s annual reports on the record 

indicate that Zenith may have benefited 

from this program during the POI. See 

ZQR at Annexure 3, 2008–2009 Annual 

Report at 27; and Annexure 4, 2009– 

2010 Annual Report at 32. Moreover, 

because of the deficiencies in Zenith’s 

response as a whole, we would be 

unable to determine what level of 

benefit Zenith received even if we had 

a complete questionnaire response on 

this program from Zenith. For example, 

as we stated above under the ‘‘Use of 

Adverse Facts Available’’ section, 

Zenith did not provide necessary 

information on the sales of any of its 

cross-owned companies. This 

information is necessary to determine 

the level of benefits Zenith may have 

received under this program. 

Therefore, absent the cooperation of 

Lloyds and Zenith (including its crossowned companies), we determine that 

the respondents’ submissions do not 

constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 

respectively, demonstrating that the 

respondents or any of their cross-owned 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POI. Therefore, as 

AFA we find that both Lloyds and 

Zenith used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

For this program, we are assigning a 

net subsidy rate of 2.90 percent ad 

valorem, which corresponds to the 

highest above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for a similar program in any 

segment of any proceeding involving 

India. See PET Film Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘PreShipment and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing’’ section. 

Summary of Programs Preliminarily 

Determined To Be Countervailable 

As AFA, we are making the adverse 

inference that Lloyds and Zenith, 

including their cross-owned companies, 

each received countervailable subsidies 

under each of the subsidy programs that 

the Department included in its initiation 

as well as the additional subsidy 

program that the Department initiated 

on March 16, 2012. Listed below are the 

AFA rates applicable to each program. 

Program Subsidy rate 

A. Export Oriented Unit Schemes: 

1. Duty-free import of all types of goods, including capital goods and raw materials ................................................................. 14.61 

2. Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (‘‘CST’’) paid on goods manufactured in India ........................................................... 3.09 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19210 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

8The rate is not separately listed because the 

maximum benefit for this program and the 

Exemption from income tax under Section l0A and 

l0B of Income Tax Act under Export Oriented Unit 

Schemes is 35 percent. Accordingly, 35 percent is 

listed under the latter program. 

Program Subsidy rate 

3. Duty drawback on fuel procured from domestic oil companies ............................................................................................... 14.61 

4. Exemption from income tax under Section l0A and l0B of Income Tax Act ........................................................................... 35.00 

5. Exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty on goods manufactured in India and procured from a Domestic Tariff 

Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 14.61 

6. Reimbursement of CST on goods manufactured in India and procured from a Domestic Tariff Area ................................... 3.09 

B. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme ...................................................................................................................................... 16.63 

C. Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes: 

1. Advance License Program ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.55 

2. Duty Free Import Authorisation Scheme .................................................................................................................................. 2.55 

3. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme ........................................................................................................................................ 14.61 

D. Pre-shipment and Post-shipment Export Financing ....................................................................................................................... 2.90 

E. Market Development Assistance .................................................................................................................................................... 6.06 

F. Market Access Initiative .................................................................................................................................................................. 6.06 

G. Government of India Loan Guarantees .......................................................................................................................................... 2.90 

H. Status Certificate Program .............................................................................................................................................................. 2.90 

I. Steel Development Fund Loans ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.99 

J. Research and Technology Scheme Under Empowered Committee Mechanism with Steel Development Fund Support ............ 0.99 

K. Special Economic Zones (‘‘SEZ’’) Programs: 

1. Duty-Free Importation of Capital Goods and Raw Materials, Components, Consumables, Intermediates, Spare Parts and 

Packing Material ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14.61 

2. Exemption from Payment of CST on Purchases of Capital Goods and Raw Materials, Components, ................................. 3.09 

3. Exemption from Electricity Duty and Cess thereon on the Sale or Supply to the SEZ Unit .................................................. 3.09 

4. SEZ Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Section l0A) 8

5A. Discounted Land and Related Fees in an SEZ ............................................................................................................................ 3.09 

5B. Land Provided at Less Than Adequate Remuneration in an SEZ ............................................................................................... 8.08 

L. Input Programs: 

1. Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel by the Steel Authority of India For Less Than Adequate Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) ................. 16.14 

2. Provision of Captive Mining Rights .......................................................................................................................................... 18.08 

3. Captive Mining Rights of Coal ................................................................................................................................................. 3.09 

4. Provision of High-Grade Ore for LTAR .................................................................................................................................... 16.14 

M. State Government of Maharashtra (‘‘SGOM’’) Programs: 

1. Sales Tax Program .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.59 

2. Value-Added Tax Refunds under SGOM Package Scheme ................................................................................................... 3.09 

3. Electricity Duty Scheme under Package Scheme Incentives 1993 ......................................................................................... 3.09 

4. Octroi Refunds ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.09 

5. Octroi Loan Guarantees ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.90 

6. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega Projects—indirect tax ....................................................................................................... 3.09 

Infrastructure Assistance for Mega Projects—grants ................................................................................................................... 6.06 

7. Provision of Land for LTAR ...................................................................................................................................................... 18.08 

8. Investment Subsidies ............................................................................................................................................................... 6.06 

N. Waiving of Interest on Loan by the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd (‘‘SICOM’’) ....................... 2.90 

Summarizing these rates yields a total 

CVD subsidy rate of 285.95 percent ad 

valorem. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated 

an individual rate for each producer/ 

exporter of the subject merchandise 

individually investigated. 

With respect to the all-others rate, 

section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act 

provides that if the countervailable 

subsidy rates established for all 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated are determined entirely in 

accordance with section 776 of the Act, 

the Department may use any reasonable 

method to establish an all-others rate for 

exporters and producers not 

individually investigated. In this case, 

the rate calculated for both of the 

investigated companies is based entirely 

on facts available under section 776 of 

the Act. There is no other information 

on the record upon which to determine 

an all-others rate. As a result, we have 

used the AFA rate assigned for Lloyds 

and Zenith as the all-others rate. This 

method is consistent with the 

Department’s past practice. See, e.g., 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 

2001); see also Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand 

From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 

2003). 

We preliminarily determine the total 

estimated net countervailable subsidy 

rates to be: 

Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy 

rate 

Lloyds Metals and Engineers 

Ltd ....................................... 285.95 

Zenith Birla Ltd ....................... 285.95 

All Others ................................ 285.95 

In accordance with sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 

directing CBP to suspend liquidation of 

all entries of circular welded pipe from 

India that are entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, and to 

require a cash deposit or bond for such 

entries of merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information relating to this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19211 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) 

of the Act, if our final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we will disclose to the 

parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of our announcement. We intend 

to release a letter to all interested parties 

that establishes the deadline for 

submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(i) (for a further discussion of 

case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

submission of case briefs, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of 

authorities relied upon, a table of 

contents, and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a public 

hearing to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will be held 

two days after the deadline for 

submission of the rebuttal briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must electronically submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

using IA ACCESS, within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain: (1) The party’s name, address, 

and telephone; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

See id. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7726 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–552–810] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

preliminarily determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

circular welded carbon-quality steel 

pipe (‘‘circular welded pipe’’) from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’). For information on the 

estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Austin Redington or Christopher 

Siepmann, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

1, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1664 or 

(202) 482–7958, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioners 

The petitioners in this investigation 

are Wheatland Tube, Allied Tube and 

Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and United 

States Steel Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the Department 

of Commerce’s (‘‘Department’’) notice of 

initiation in the Federal Register. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From India, the Sultanate of 

Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations, 76 FR 72173 (November 

22, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’), and the 

accompanying Initiation Checklist. 

On December 16, 2011, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

published its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

of circular welded pipe from India, 

Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and 

Vietnam. See Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, Oman, 

the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 

76 FR 78313 (December 16, 2011). 

The Department released U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

entry data for U.S. imports of circular 

welded pipe from Vietnam between 

January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, 

to be used as the basis for respondent 

selection. See Memorandum from 

Joshua Morris, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst to the File, 

‘‘Release of Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Data,’’ dated 

November 22, 2011. The CBP entry data 

covered products included in this 

investigation which entered under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers 

likely to include subject merchandise: 

7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 

7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 

7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 

7306.30.50.90. 

On December 15, 2011, the 

Department issued its respondent 

selection analysis. Given available 

resources, the Department determined it 

could examine no more than two 

producers/exporters and selected SeAH 

Steel VINA Corp. (‘‘SeAH VINA’’) and 

Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan 

Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Haiphong Hongyuan’’). See 

Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, 

Office Director, to Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ 

dated December 15, 2011. These 

companies were the two largest 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise, based on aggregate 

volume, to the United States. 

On December 19, 2011, the 

Department postponed the deadline for 

the preliminary determination in this 

investigation until March 26, 2012. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, 

the United Arab Emirates, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES