Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19623 

1See Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Welded 

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 

51 FR 7984 (March 7, 1986). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 11197 

(March 1, 2011). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 

23545 (April 27, 2011). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Advance Notification of 

Sunset Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

Background 

Every five years, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission 

automatically initiate and conduct a 

review to determine whether revocation 

of a countervailing or antidumping duty 

order or termination of an investigation 

suspended under section 704 or 734 of 

the Act would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

or a countervailable subsidy (as the case 

may be) and of material injury. 

Upcoming Sunset Reviews for May 

2012 

The following Sunset Review is 

scheduled for initiation in May 2012 

and will appear in that month’s Notice 

of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review. 

Antidumping duty proceedings Department 

contact 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–905) (1st Review) ............................................................... Jennifer Moats, 

(202) 482– 

5047. 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings 

No Sunset Review of suspended 

investigations is scheduled for initiation 

in May 2012. 

Suspended Investigations 

No Sunset Review of suspended 

investigations is scheduled for initiation 

in May 2012. 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 

(April 16, 1998). The Notice of Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews 

provides further information regarding 

what is required of all parties to 

participate in Sunset Reviews. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Please note that if the Department 

receives a Notice of Intent to Participate 

from a member of the domestic industry 

within 15 days of the date of initiation, 

the review will continue. Thereafter, 

any interested party wishing to 

participate in the Sunset Review must 

provide substantive comments in 

response to the notice of initiation no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

initiation. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: March 22, 2012. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7865 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–489–502] 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard 

Pipe from Turkey: Preliminary Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

certain welded carbon steel standard 

pipe from Turkey for the period January 

1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. We 

preliminarily find that the net subsidy 

rate for both companies under review is 

de minimis. See the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review’’ section below. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section, 

infra. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 2, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska at 202–482–8362 (for 

Borusan), Kristen Johnson at 202–482– 

4793 (for Erbosan), and Gayle Longest at 

202–482–3338 (for Toscelik), AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 7, 1986, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on certain welded carbon 

steel pipe and tube products from 

Turkey.1 On March 1, 2011, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this CVD order.2 On March 30, 

2011, we received a letter from Erbosan 

Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

(Erbosan) requesting that the company 

be reviewed by the Department. On 

March 31, 2011, we received a request 

from Wheatland Tube Company 

(Wheatland), the petitioner, to review 

the following companies: Borusan 

Group, Borusan Mannesmann Boru 

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (BMB), and 

Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. 

(Istikbal), (collectively, Borusan) and 

Tosyali dis Ticaret A.S. (Tosyali) and 

Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. 

(Toscelik Profil), (collectively, Toscelik). 

On April 27, 2011, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

CVD order on certain welded carbon 

steel standard pipe from Turkey for the 

period January 1, 2010, through 

December 31, 2010, covering Borusan, 

Erbosan, and Toscelik.3

On April 27, 2011, we issued the 

initial questionnaire to Borusan, 

Erbosan, Toscelik, and the Government 

of the Republic of Turkey (GOT). On 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19624 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

4See Memorandum to the File from Kristen 

Johnson, Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

3, regarding ‘‘Extension of Time for the Filing of 

New Subsidy Allegations,’’ (August 4, 2011). 

5See Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, from Robert 

Copyak, Senior Financial Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, regarding ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum on New Subsidy Allegations,’’ 

(October 13, 2011). 

6See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe 

from Turkey: Extension of Time for Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 65179 (October 20, 2011). 

7See Memorandum to the File from Kristen 

Johnson, Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

3, regarding ‘‘Request for Customs Data in the 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from 

Turkey,’’ (October 27, 2011). 

8See Letter from the Department to Erbosan 

regarding ‘‘Entry Documentation,’’ (November 3, 

2011). 

9See Erbosan’s ‘‘Response to Entry 

Documentation Request,’’ (November 17, 2011) at 2. 

10See Memorandum to the File from Kristen 

Johnson, Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

3, regarding ‘‘Meeting with Counsel for Erbosan,’’ 

(December 5, 2011). 

11See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard 

Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Intent to Rescind 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, in Part, 

76 FR 78886 (December 20, 2011). 

12See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standare 

PIpie and Tube from Turkey: Notice of Rescision of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, In Part, 

77 FR 6542 (February 8, 2012), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum..

June 28, 2011, we received the GOT’s 

initial questionnaire response. On July 

5, 2011, we received responses to the 

initial questionnaire from Erbosan and 

Toscelik. On July 14, 2011, we received 

Borusan’s response to the initial 

questionnaire. 

To the GOT, we issued supplemental 

questionnaires on July 18, 2011, October 

3, 2011, January 5, 2012, and February 

1, 2012, and the GOT submitted its 

responses on September 12, 2011, 

November 4, 2011, December 15, 2012, 

January 30, 2012, and February 8, 2012, 

respectively. To Erbosan, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires on July 19, 

2011, and October 3, 2011, and the 

company submitted its responses on 

September 12, 2011, and November 4, 

2011, respectively. To Toscelik, we 

issued a supplemental questionnaire on 

July 25, 2011, and January 4, 2012, 

January 20, 2012, and February 1, 2012. 

Toscelik provided its questionnaire 

responses on August 29, 2011, January 

20, 2012, January 30, 2012, and 

February 8, 2012. To Borusan, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires on 

September 8, 2011 and September 29, 

2011, to which it responded on 

September 20, 2011 and October 6, 

2011. 

On August 3, 2011, United States 

Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), a 

domestic interested party, submitted a 

letter requesting that the Department 

conduct verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the respondents in this review. 

On August 1, 2011, U.S. Steel 

requested an extension of time for the 

submission of new subsidy allegations. 

The original deadline for submitting 

new subsidy allegations was August 3, 

2011. On August 4, 2011, we extended 

the time period until August 24, 2011.4

On August 11, 2011, Wheatland filed 

new subsidy allegations and new factual 

information. U.S. Steel submitted new 

factual information on August 18, 2011, 

and new subsidy allegations on August 

24, 2011. Wheatland and U.S. Steel 

allege that Borusan, Erbosan, and 

Toscelik benefitted from a variety of 

countervailable subsidies provided by 

the GOT, such as the provision of land 

and buildings for less than adequate 

remuneration, grants, preferential 

lending, reduction in tax rates, and 

exemptions from corporate income tax, 

customs duties and fees, and value 

added taxes (VAT). 

On October 13, 2011, the Department 

initiated on the new subsidy 

allegations.5 On October 19, 2011, we 

issued the new subsidies questionnaire 

to the GOT. On October 21, 2011, we 

issued the new subsidies questionnaire 

to Borusan, Erbosan, and Toscelik. 

Borusan, Toscelik, and Erbosan 

submitted their responses to the new 

subsidies questionnaire on December 

11, 2011, December 12, 2011, and 

January 23, 2012, respectively. On 

January 13, 2012, we issued a 

supplemental new subsidy 

questionnaire to Borusan, to which it 

responded on January 26, 2012. The 

GOT submitted its response to the new 

subsidy questionnaire on December 15, 

2011. 

On October 20, 2011, the Department 

postponed the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review until March 30, 

2012.6

On October 27, 2011, the Department 

requested U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) data on Type 3 entries 

(i.e., suspended entries of subject 

merchandise) by Erbosan during the 

period of review (POR).7 Because the 

CBP data showed no suspended Type 3 

entries by Erbosan, on November 3, 

2011, the Department requested from 

Erbosan documentation demonstrating a 

suspended Type 3 entry by the company 

during the CVD POR.8

On November 17, 2011, Erbosan 

reported that because the exports of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR were to an 

unrelated importer, the company does 

not have any entry documentation.9 On 

December 2, 2011, officials of Import 

Administration met with Erbosan’s 

counsel to discuss the status of the 

company’s entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 10

On December 20, 2011, the 

Department published a notice of intent 

to rescind the administrative review of 

Erbosan and provided interested parties 

with the opportunity to submit 

comments on the issue.11 On January 9, 

2012, we received and considered the 

comments from Erbosan and Wheatland 

on the notice of preliminary rescission. 

Because there are no suspended entries 

of subject merchandise produced by 

Erbosan against which to assess duties, 

the Department determined to rescind 

the 2010 administrative review for 

Erbosan.12

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), this review covers only 

those producers or exporters of the 

subject merchandise for which a review 

was specifically requested and not 

rescinded. Therefore, the only 

companies subject to this review are 

Borusan and Toscelik. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain welded carbon steel pipe and 

tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 

inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of 

any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from 

Turkey. These products are currently 

provided for under the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 

7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies is January 1, 2010, 

through December 31, 2010. 

Company History 

BMB and its affiliated foreign trading 

company, Istikbal, are both part of the 

Borusan Group. BMB produces subject 

merchandise for both the home and 

export markets. During the POR, all 

subject merchandise exported to the 

United States was exported from Turkey 

by BMB. For sales of subject 

merchandise to other destinations, 

Istikbal was the exporter from Turkey. 

See Borusan’s July 14, 2011, 

questionnaire response at page 2. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.525(c), we 

are attributing any subsidies received by 

Istikbal to BMB. 

Toscelik Profil and its affiliated 

foreign trading company, Tosyali, are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19625 

13See GOT’s Initial Questionnaire Response at 17 

(June 28, 2011). 

14See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 

from Turkey; Final Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 67 FR 55815 (August 30, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(Wire Rod Memorandum) at ‘‘Benchmark Interest 

Rates;’’ see also Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, 

72 FR 62837, 62838 (November 7, 2007) (Turkey 

Pipe 2006 Preliminary Results), unchanged in Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe 

from Turkey, 73 FR 12080 (March 6, 2008) (Turkey 

Pipe 2006 Final Results). 

owned by Tosyali Holding, a Turkish 

holding company. See Toscelik Profil’s 

July 5, 2011, questionnaire response 

(Toscelik’s July QR) at 5. Toscelik Profil, 

which produces subject merchandise for 

both the domestic and export markets, 

was established in 1992. Id. at 6 and 

Exhibit 4. Tosyali, founded in 1996, is 

the exporter of record with respect to 

Toscelik Profil’s export sales and sells 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. Id. at 6– 

7 and Exhibit 7. Consistent with 19 CFR 

351.525(c), we are attributing any 

subsidies received by Tosyali to 

Toscelik Profil. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Allocation Period 

Under 19 CFR 351.524(b), nonrecurring subsidies are allocated over a 

period corresponding to the average 

useful life (AUL) of the renewable 

physical assets used to produce the 

subject merchandise. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.524(d)(2), there is a rebuttable 

presumption that the AUL will be taken 

from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s 

1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation 

Range System (IRS Tables), as updated 

by the Department of Treasury. For the 

subject merchandise, the IRS Tables 

prescribe an AUL of 15 years. No 

interested party has claimed that the 

AUL of 12 years is unreasonable. 

Further, for non-recurring subsidies, 

we applied the ‘‘0.5 percent expense 

test’’ described in 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). 

Under this test, we compare the amount 

of subsidies approved under a given 

program in a particular year to sales 

(total sales or total export sales, as 

appropriate) for the same year. If the 

amount of subsidies is less than 0.5 

percent of the relevant sales, then the 

benefits are allocated to the year of 

receipt rather than allocated over the 

AUL period. 

Benchmark Interest Rates 

Short-Term Benchmark 

To determine whether governmentprovided loans under review conferred 

a benefit, the Department uses, where 

possible, company-specific interest rates 

for comparable commercial loans. See 

19 CFR 351.505(a). In the July 14, 2011, 

questionnaire response at Exhibit 25, 

Borusan submitted comparable 

company–specific short term interest 

rates for 2010. Thus, we calculated the 

2010 benchmark interest rate for short 

term Turkish Lira, Euro and U.S. dollar 

denominated loans based on the data 

reported by Borusan as provided under 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii). To calculate 

the short term benchmark rates for 

Borusan, we derived an annual average 

of the interest rates on commercial loans 

that Borusan took out during the years 

in which the government loans were 

issued, weighted by the principle 

amount of each loan. 

Where no company-specific 

benchmark interest rates are available, 

as is the case for Borusan for 2009, the 

Department’s regulations direct us to 

use a national average interest rate as 

the benchmark. See 19 CFR 

351.505(a)(3)(ii). However, according to 

the GOT, there is no official national 

average short-term interest rate available 

in Turkey.13 Therefore, consistent with 

our past practice in Turkey CVD 

proceedings,14 we calculated the 2009 

and 2010 benchmark interest rate for 

short-term Turkish Lira denominated 

loans based on short-term interest rate 

data as reported by The Economist. For 

U.S. dollar-denominated interest rates, 

we used lending rate data from 

International Financial Statistics, a 

publication of the International 

Monetary Fund (IMF). For Eurodenominated interest rates, we used 

prime lending rate data from Moneyrate, 

an online statistical database operated 

by the Wall Street Journal. 

As discussed below, Borusan paid 

commissions with regard to loans 

received under several countervailable 

loan programs (e.g., the Short-Term PreShipment Rediscount Program, and PreShipment Export Credits programs). It is 

the Department’s practice to normally 

compare effective interest rates rather 

than nominal rates in making the loan 

comparison. See Countervailing Duties; 

Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65362 

(November 25, 1998) (Preamble). 

‘‘Effective’’ interest rates are intended to 

take account of the actual cost of the 

loan, including the amount of any fees, 

commissions, compensating balances, 

government charges, or penalties paid in 

addition to the ‘‘nominal’’ interest rate. 

The benchmark short-term Turkish 

Lira interest rates sourced from The 

Economist and the Wall Street Journal, 

however, do not include commissions 

or fees paid to commercial banks, i.e., 

they are nominal rates. Further, we 

preliminarily determine that we lack 

definitive evidence to conclude that the 

company-specific short-term rates 

reported by Borusan include 

commissions. Therefore, for these 

preliminary results, we compared the 

benchmark interest rate to the interest 

rate that Borusanwas charged on the 

countervailable loans, exclusive of 

commissions, to make the comparison 

on a nominal interest rate basis. 

Long-Term Benchmark 

As discussed above, to determine 

whether government-provided loans 

under review conferred a benefit, the 

Department uses, where possible, 

company-specific interest rates for 

comparable commercial loans. See 19 

CFR 351.505(a). However, Toscelik, the 

firm for which a long-term interest rate 

is required, did not report any companyspecific long-term benchmark rates. 

Where no company-specific benchmark 

interest rates are available, as is the case 

in this review, the Department’s 

regulations direct us to use a national 

average interest rate as the benchmark. 

See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). We also 

lack information from the GOT 

concerning long-term interest rates in 

Turkey. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), we used the 

national average discount rate in Turkey 

for the relevant years, as reported in 

International Financial Statistics, as the 

long-term discount rate utilized in the 

grant allocation formula. 

Analysis of Programs 

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Countervailable 

A. Deduction from Taxable Income for 

Export Revenue 

Addendum 4108 of Article 40 of the 

Income Tax Law, effective June 2, 1995, 

allows taxpayers engaged in export 

activities to claim a lump sum 

deduction from gross income, in an 

amount not to exceed 0.5 percent of the 

taxpayer’s foreign-exchange earnings. 

See Government of Turkey’s initial 

questionnaire response (GOT’s initial 

questionnaire) at II–4 and II–5. The 

deduction for export earnings may 

either be taken as a lump sum on a 

company’s annual income tax return or 

be shown within the company’s 

marketing, selling and distribution 

expense account of the income 

statement to record the subtraction of 

eligible undocumented expenses from 

gross income. Id. Undocumented 

expenses are expenses that are not 

supported by invoices for lodging, food, 

and transportation costs incurred during 

overseas business trips. Id. Under this 

program, those expenses are deductible 

expenditures for tax purposes. Id. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19626 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

15To promote exports and diversify export 

products and markets, the GOT encouraged small 

and medium scale enterprises to form SFTC, which 

comprise a group of companies that operate 

together in a similar sector. 

16See ‘‘Benchmark Interest Rates,’’ supra 

(discussing the benchmark rates used in these 

preliminary results). 

Consistent with prior determinations, 

we preliminarily find that this tax 

deduction is a countervailable subsidy. 

See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel 

Standard Pipe from Turkey: Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 16439, 

16440–41 (April 1, 2010) (Turkey Pipe 

2010 Preliminary Results), unchanged in 

the final results, see Certain Welded 

Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from 

Turkey: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 44766 (July 29, 2010) 

(Turkey Pipe 2010 Final Results). 

The income tax deduction provides a 

financial contribution within the 

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

because it represents revenue forgone by 

the GOT. The deduction provides a 

benefit in the amount of the tax savings 

to the company pursuant to section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. It is also specific 

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

because its receipt is contingent upon 

export earnings. In this review, no new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been submitted to 

warrant reconsideration of the 

Department’s prior finding of 

countervailability for this program. 

During 2010, BMB, Istikbal, and 

Tosyali used the deduction for export 

earnings program with respect to their 

2009 income taxes. 

The Department typically treats a tax 

deduction as a recurring benefit in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). 

To calculate the countervailable subsidy 

rate for this program, we calculated the 

tax savings realized by BMB, Istikbal, 

and Tosyali in 2010, as a result of the 

deduction for export earnings. For BMB 

and Istikbal, we divided their combined 

tax savings by Borusan’s total export 

sales for 2010. For Tosyali, we divided 

the tax savings realized by Toscelik’s 

total export sales for 2010. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine the net countervailable 

subsidy for this program to be 0.08 

percent ad valorem for Borusan, and 

0.04 percent ad valorem for Toscelik. 

B. Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term 

Export Credits 

The Foreign Trade Company (FTC) 

loan program was established by the 

Turkish Export Bank to meet the 

working capital needs of exporters, 

manufacturer-exporters, and 

manufacturers supplying exporters. See 

GOT’s Initial Questionnaire at II–31. 

This program is specifically designed to 

benefit Foreign Trade Corporate 

Companies (FTCC) and Sectoral Foreign 

Trade Companies (SFTC).15 Id. An FTCC 

is a company whose export performance 

was at least US$100 million in the 

previous year and has paid-in-capital of 

Turkish Lira 2 million or more. The 

Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade 

grants FTCC and SFTC status to eligible 

companies. Id. 

To eligible companies, the Export 

Bank provides short-term export loans 

in Turkish Lira or foreign currency, 

based on their prior export performance 

and financial criteria, up to 100 percent 

of the free on board (FOB) export 

commitment. Id. at II–34. The loan 

interest rates are set by the Export Bank 

and the maximum term for the loans is 

360 days. Id. To qualify for an FTC loan, 

along with the necessary application 

documents, a company must provide a 

bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to 

the loan’s principal and interest 

amount, because the financing is a 

direct credit from the Export Bank. Id. 

at II–33. During the POR, Istikbal was 

the only Borusan company to pay 

interest against FTC credits during the 

POR. Id. at II–35. See Borusan’s July 14, 

2012, questionnaire response at p. 26. 

Consistent with previous 

determinations, we preliminarily find 

that these loans confer a countervailable 

subsidy within the meaning of section 

771(5) of the Act. See Turkey Pipe 2010 

Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 16439 

unchanged in the Turkey Pipe 2010 

Final Results; see also Turkey Pipe 2006 

Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 62839, 

unchanged in the Turkey Pipe 2006 

Final Results. The loans constitute a 

financial contribution in the form of a 

direct transfer of funds from the GOT, 

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

benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) 

of the Act in the amount of the 

difference between the payments of 

interest that Istikbal made on its loans 

during the POR and the payments the 

company would have made on 

comparable commercial loans. The 

program is also specific in accordance 

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

because receipt of the loans is 

contingent upon export performance. 

Further, the FTC loans are not tied to a 

particular export destination. Therefore, 

we treated this program as an untied 

export loan program, which renders it 

countervailable regardless of whether 

the loans were used for exports to the 

United States. Id. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we 

calculated the benefit as the difference 

between the payments of interest that 

Istikbal made on its FTC loans during 

the POR and the payments the company 

would have made on comparable 

commercial loans.16 In accordance with 

section 771(6)(A) of the Act, we 

subtracted from the benefit amount the 

fees that Istikbal paid to commercial 

banks for the required letters of 

guarantee. We then divided the 

resulting benefit by Borusan’s total 

export sales for 2010. On this basis, we 

preliminarily find that the net 

countervailable subsidy for this program 

is 0.01 percent ad valorem for Borusan. 

Toscelik reported that it did not use 

this program during the POR. 

C. Pre-Export Credits 

The Pre-Export Credit program meets 

the working capital needs of exporters, 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

supplying exporters, except for FTC and 

SFTC classified exporters, which are 

ineligible to receive credits under this 

program. See GOT’s Initial 

Questionnaire at II–21. Eligible 

applicants are companies that exported 

more than $200,000 of goods in the 

previous 12 months. Id. Like FTC loans, 

the Export Bank directly extends preexport loans to eligible companies for 

the FOB value of the export 

commitment. Id. at II–22. The loans, 

which have interest rates set by the 

Export Bank, are denominated in either 

Turkish Lira or foreign currency and 

have a maximum maturity of 540 days. 

Id. at II–25. To qualify for a pre-export 

loan, along with the necessary 

application documents, a company must 

provide a bank letter of guarantee, 

equivalent to the loan’s principal and 

interest amount. Id. at II–22 to II–23. In 

March, 2008, interest rates applied to 

companies started to be determined 

according to their outstanding risks in 

Short Term Export Credits. Id. at II–18. 

During the POR, Borusan (specifically, 

BMB) was the only respondent that paid 

interest against pre-export loans. Id. at 

II–26. See Borusan’s July 14, 2011, 

questionnaire response at p. 27 

Consistent with previous 

determinations, we preliminarily find 

that these loans confer a countervailable 

subsidy within the meaning of section 

771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., Turkey Pipe 

2010 Preliminary Results, unchanged in 

the Turkey Pipe 2010 Final Results. The 

loans constitute a financial contribution 

in the form of a direct transfer of funds 

from the GOT, under section 

771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists 

under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in 

the amount of the difference between 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19627 

17See GOT’s Initial Questionnaire Response at 13. 

18See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 46100, 46103, 46106 (September 8, 

2009) at ‘‘Research and Development Grants Under 

the Industrial Development Act’’ and ‘‘R&D Grants 

Under the Act on the Promotion of the 

Development of Alternative Energy,’’ unchanged in 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

55192 (October 27, 2009). 

the payments of interest that BMB made 

on the loans during the POR and the 

payments the company would have 

made on comparable commercial loans. 

The program is also specific in 

accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act because receipt of the loans is 

contingent upon export performance. 

Further, like the FTC loans, these 

loans are not tied to a particular export 

destination. Therefore, we treated this 

program as an untied export loan 

program rendering it countervailable 

regardless of whether the loans were 

used for exports to the United States. Id. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we 

calculated the benefit as the difference 

between the payments of interest that 

BMB made on its pre-export loans 

during the POR and the payments the 

company would have made on 

comparable commercial loans. In 

accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the 

Act, we subtracted from the benefit 

amount the fees which BMB paid to 

commercial banks for the required 

letters of guarantee. We then divided the 

resulting benefit by Borusan’s total 

export value for 2010. On this basis, we 

preliminarily find that the net 

countervailable subsidy for this program 

is 0.01 percent ad valorem for Borusan. 

Toscelik reported that it did not use 

this program during the POR. 

D. Pre-Shipment Export Credits 

Turkish Export Bank provides shortterm pre-shipment export loans through 

intermediary commercial banks to 

exporters, manufacturer-exporters, and 

manufacturers supplying exporters and 

SFTCs to assist them in meeting their 

export commitments. See GOT’s Initial 

Questionnaire Response at II–10. The 

commercial banks, which assume the 

default risks of the borrowers, are 

allocated credit lines by the Export Bank 

to make the loans. Id. These loans cover 

up to 100 percent of the FOB export 

value, are denominated in either 

Turkish Lira or foreign currency, and 

have a maximum term of 540 days. Id. 

The interest rates charged on these preshipment loans are set by the Export 

Bank. Id. However, because these loans 

are provided through intermediary 

commercial banks, those banks can add 

a maximum one percent to the Turkish 

Lira loan interest rate and 0.5 percent to 

the foreign currency loan interest rate as 

their commissions.17 Since March 2008 

interest rates applied to companies are 

determined according to their 

outstanding risks in Short Term Export 

Credits. Id. at II–11. 

In previous determinations, the 

Department found this program to be 

countervailable because receipt of the 

loans is contingent upon export 

performance and a benefit was 

conferred to the extent that the interest 

rates paid on the government loan were 

less than the amount the recipient 

would pay on comparable commercial 

loans. See, e.g., Turkey Pipe 2010 

Preliminary Results, 75 FR 16442, 

unchanged in the Turkey Pipe 2010 

Final Results. 

The Department also found that this 

program is an untied export loan 

program because the loans are not 

specifically tied to a particular 

destination at the time of approval and 

the borrower only has to demonstrate 

that the export commitment was 

satisfied (i.e., exports amounting to the 

FOB value of the credit) to close the 

loan. See Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe 

from Turkey, 71 FR 43111 (July 31, 

2006) (Turkey Pipe 2004 Final Results), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre-Shipment Export 

Credits.’’ 

In this review, no new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been submitted to warrant 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

prior findings for this program. During 

the POR, Borusan (specifically, BMB) 

was the only respondent that paid 

interest against pre-shipment export 

credit loans. 

Consistent with the prior findings, we 

preliminarily find that these loans 

confer a countervailable subsidy within 

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

The loans constitute a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds from the GOT, under 

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

exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the 

Act in the amount of the difference 

between the payments of interest that 

BMB made on the loans during the POR 

and the payments the company would 

have made on comparable commercial 

loans. The program is also specific in 

accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act because receipt of the loans is 

contingent upon export performance. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we 

calculated the benefit as the difference 

between the payments of interest that 

BMB made on its pre-shipment export 

loans during the POR and the payments 

the company would have made on 

comparable commercial loans. It is the 

Department’s practice to normally 

compare effective interest rates rather 

than nominal rates in making the loan 

comparison. See Countervailing Duties; 

Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65362 

(November 25, 1998) (Preamble). 

‘‘Effective’’ interest rates are intended to 

take account of the actual cost of the 

loan, including the amount of any fees, 

commissions, compensating balances, 

government charges, or penalties paid in 

addition to the ‘‘nominal’’ interest rate. 

The benchmark short-term Turkish 

Lira interest rates sourced from The 

Economist, however, do not include 

commissions or fees paid to commercial 

banks, i.e., they are nominal rates. See 

‘‘Benchmark Interest Rate,’’ section 

supra. Therefore, for these preliminary 

results, we compared the benchmark 

Turkish Lira interest rate to the interest 

rate that BMB was charged on the preshipment export credit loans, exclusive 

of the intermediary bank commissions, 

to make the comparison on a nominal 

interest rate basis. 

After computing the benefit amount, 

we subtracted from the benefit amount 

the fees which BMB paid to commercial 

banks for the required letters of 

guarantee, as provided under section 

771(6)(A) of the Act. We then divided 

that amount by Borusan’s total export 

value for 2010. On this basis, we 

preliminarily find that the net 

countervailable subsidy for this program 

is less than 0.005 percent ad valorem for 

Borusan. Consistent with the 

Department’s practice, a subsidy rate of 

less than 0.005 percent ad valorem does 

not confer a measurable benefit and, 

therefore, we have not included it in the 

calculation of the net countervailable 

rate.18

Toscelik reported that it did not use 

this program during the POR. 

E. Short-Term Pre-Shipment Rediscount 

Program 

‘‘Short Term Pre-Shipment 

Rediscount Program’’ (SPRP) was 

established in 1995. It is administered 

by Turkey’s Export Bank. See GOT’s 

Initial Questionnaire at II–53. The SPRP 

program is designed to provide financial 

support to Turkish exporters, 

manufacturer-exporters and 

manufacturers supplying exporters. Id. 

This program is contingent upon an 

export commitment. Id. Under SPRP, 

there is a limit of USD 200.000, up to 

USD 20 million per company. Loan 

payments shall be made within the 

credit period or at maturity to the 

Export Bank. Companies can repay 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19628 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

either in the foreign currency in which 

the loan was obtained or in a Turkish 

Lira equivalent of principal and interest 

set using the exchange rate determined 

by the Export Bank. Id. at II–55 to II–56. 

In March 2008 interest rates applied to 

companies started to be determined 

according to their outstanding risks in 

Short Term Export Credits. Id. at 54. 

During the POR, Borusan (specifically, 

BMB and Istikbal) paid interest against 

pre-shipment rediscount export credit 

loans. See Id. at Exhibit 9. 

We preliminarily find that these loans 

confer a countervailable subsidy within 

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

The loans constitute a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds from the GOT, under 

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

exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the 

Act in the amount of the difference 

between the payments of interest that 

BMB and Istikbal made on the loans 

during the POR and the payments the 

company would have made on 

comparable commercial loans. The 

program is also specific in accordance 

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

because receipt of the loans is 

contingent upon export performance. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we 

calculated the benefit as the difference 

between the payments of interest that 

BMB and Istikbal made on its short-term 

pre-shipment rediscount loans during 

the POR and the payments the 

companies would have made on 

comparable commercial loans. It is the 

Department’s practice to normally 

compare effective interest rates rather 

than nominal rates in making the loan 

comparison. See Countervailing Duties; 

Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65362 

(November 25, 1998) (Preamble). 

‘‘Effective’’ interest rates are intended to 

take account of the actual cost of the 

loan, including the amount of any fees, 

commissions, compensating balances, 

government charges, or penalties paid in 

addition to the ‘‘nominal’’ interest rate. 

The benchmark short-term Turkish 

Lira interest rates sourced from The 

Economist, however, do not include 

commissions or fees paid to commercial 

banks, i.e., they are nominal rates. See 

‘‘Benchmark Interest Rate,’’ section 

supra. Therefore, for these preliminary 

results, we compared the benchmark 

Turkish Lira interest rate to the interest 

rate that BMB and Istikbal were charged 

on the pre-shipment export rediscount 

credits, exclusive of the intermediary 

bank commissions, to make the 

comparison on a nominal interest rate 

basis. 

After computing the benefit amount, 

we subtracted from the benefit amount 

the fees which BMB and Istikbal paid to 

commercial banks for the required 

letters of guarantee, as provided under 

section 771(6)(A) of the Act. We then 

divided that amount by Borusan’s total 

export value for 2010. On this basis, we 

preliminarily find that the net 

countervailable subsidy for this program 

is 0.17 percent ad valorem for Borusan 

and 0XX percent ad valorem for Istikbal. 

F. Law 5084: Withholding of Income Tax 

on Wages and Salaries 

The Ministry of Finance of the GOT 

administers the withholding of income 

tax on wages and salaries program 

(withholding of income tax program) 

pursuant to Article 2 and Article 3 of 

Law 5084. The purpose of this program 

under Law 5084, as set forth in Article 

3, is to increase investments and 

employment opportunities in certain 

provinces of Turkey by canceling the 

income tax calculated on the wages and 

salaries of the workers. See GOT’s June 

23, 2011, questionnaire response (GOT’s 

June QR) at II–47 and Exhibit 23. 

According to the GOT, all enterprises or 

industries established in the 49 

provinces which have a GDP per capita 

equal to or less than 1,550 US dollars (as 

determined by the State Institute of 

Statistics as of 2001) or which have a 

negative socio-economic development 

index value (as determined by the State 

Planning Organization as of 2003) can 

benefit from this program. Id. at II–49 

and Exhibit 24. 

The GOT states that this program 

includes two levels of withholding 

based on where the enterprise is 

established in the 49 eligible provinces. 

See GOT’s June QR at II–47. According 

to the GOT, firms whose premises are 

established in Organized Industrial 

Zones (OIZ) or Industrial Zones located 

in the 49 provinces can benefit from 100 

percent cancellation of income tax 

calculated on the wages of all workers 

who have been hired by income or 

corporate tax payers hiring at least ten 

workers. Id. Companies whose premises 

are located at other areas of the 49 

eligible provinces can benefit from 80 

percent cancellation of income tax 

calculated on the wages of all workers 

who have been hired by income or 

corporate tax payers hiring at least ten 

workers. Id. The GOT further states that 

the total amount to be cancelled cannot 

exceed the sum determined on the basis 

of the above mentioned rates calculated 

on the value to be obtained by 

multiplying the number of employees 

and the income tax payable for the 

minimum wage. Id. In addition, Article 

7 of Law 5084 states that this program 

shall be applicable for any new 

investments for five years for the ones 

completed by December 31, 2007, for 

four years for the ones completed by 

December 31, 2008 and for three years 

for the ones completed by December 31, 

2009. See GOT’s June QR at II–47. 

Hence, the last date which the 

investment can benefit from this tax 

incentive program is December 31, 

2012. Id. 

During the POR, Toscelik reported 

that it received a benefit under this 

program with respect to its facility in 

the Osmaniye OIZ. See Toscelik’s July 5, 

2011, questionnaire response (July QR) 

at 20. Although Toscelik acknowledges 

receiving this benefit, Toscelik states 

that the relief of payment of 

withholding does not benefit subject 

merchandise since its Osmaniye plant 

produces only billet, hot-rolled coil, and 

spiral-weld pipe, none of which are 

subject merchandise and the relief only 

applies to the workers at the Osmaniye 

plant. Id. and Toscelik’s August 29, 

2011, questionnaire response (August 

QR). However, in a subsequent 

submission, Toscelik explains that the 

hot-rolled coils produced at the 

Osmaniye plant with a thickness greater 

than or equal to two millimeters are an 

input into subject merchandise. See 

Toscelik’s August QR. Toscelik further 

explains that the equipment at the 

Osmaniye plant could not be used to 

produce subject merchandise because 

this facility does not have pipe-making 

equipment in Osmaniye for subject 

merchandise. Id. 

With respect to the product tying 

arguments presented by Toscelik, we 

refer to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5), which 

addresses the attribution of subsidies to 

a particular product. Section 

351.525(b)(5)(i), states that if a subsidy 

is tied to the production or sale of 

particular products, the Secretary will 

attribute the subsidy only to those 

products. However, the respondent 

must demonstrate that the subsidy is, in 

fact, tied to out-of-scope merchandise 

and could not benefit production of inscope merchandise. Because Toscelik 

produces hot-rolled coils at the 

Osmaniye plant that can be used as an 

input into the subject merchandise, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

nothing on the record that demonstrates 

that this program is precluded from 

benefitting the subject merchandise. 

In these Preliminary Results, we find 

that during the period of review, 

Toscelik benefitted from the 

withholding of income tax under this 

OIZ program pursuant to Section 

771(5)(E)(i) of the Act in the amount of 

the income taxes on wages and salaries 

that it did not pay. We also find that this 

program is regionally-specific under 

771(5A)(D)(iv) because it is limited to 

companies located in the 49 eligible 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19629 

provinces. Moreover, we find that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.503(iii) to the extent that it relieves 

Toscelik of the obligation to pay income 

taxes on wages and salaries that it 

would have had to pay absent this 

program. 

We attributed the subsidy to 

Toscelik’s total sales pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(3). 

To calculate the benefit from the 

income tax relief that Toscelik received 

under the income tax withholding 

program, we summed the total amount 

of income tax savings reported by 

Toscelik during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.509(a)(1). To calculate the net 

subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by 

Toscelik’s total f.o.b. sales during the 

POR. On this basis, we preliminarily 

determined Toscelik’s net subsidy rate 

under this program to be 0.02 percent 

ad valorem. 

G. Law 5084: Incentive for Employers’ 

Share in Insurance Premiums 

The Social Security Institution of the 

GOT administers the incentive for the 

Employer’s Share in Insurance 

Premiums Program (Insurance 

Premiums Program) pursuant to Article 

2 and Article 4 of Law 5084. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–7 and GOT’s June QR 

at Exhibit 23. The purpose of this 

program, as set forth in Article 4 of Law 

5084, is to increase investments and 

employment opportunities in certain 

provinces of Turkey by providing 

support for the employer’s share of 

insurance premiums through the GOT’s 

limited or full undertaking of that share 

under certain conditions. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–8. According to the 

GOT, all enterprises or industries 

established in the 49 provinces which 

have a GDP per capita equal to or less 

than 1,550 US dollars (as determined by 

the State Institute of Statistics as of 

2001) or which have a negative socioeconomic development index value (as 

determined by the State Planning 

Organization as of 2003) can benefit 

from this program. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–8 and GOT’s June QR 

at Exhibit 24. 

The GOT states that this program 

includes two levels of activity based on 

where the enterprise is established in 

the 49 eligible provinces. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–8. According to the 

GOT, firms whose premises are 

established in Organized Industrial 

Zones (OIZs) or Industrial Zones located 

in the 49 provinces can benefit from a 

100 percent undertaking for income tax 

or corporate taxpayers (employers) 

hiring at least ten workers. Id. 

Companies whose premises are located 

at other areas of the 49 eligible 

provinces can benefit from 80 percent 

undertaking for income tax or corporate 

taxpayers (employers) hiring at least ten 

workers. Id. The GOT further states that 

the support will be provided if 

employers submit monthly premium 

and service documents to the Social 

Security Institution within the statutory 

periods in conformity with the Social 

Security Law No. 506 and if they pay 

the amounts corresponding to the 

employees’ share in the insurance 

premiums of all the insured and the 

employers’ share which is unmet by the 

Treasury. Id. 

In addition, Article 7 of Law 5084 

states that this program shall be 

applicable for any new investments for 

five years for the ones completed by 

December 31, 2007, for four years for the 

ones completed by December 31, 2008 

and for three years for the ones 

completed by December 31, 2009. See 

GOT’s September QR at I–9. Hence, the 

last date which the investment can 

benefit from this tax incentive program 

is December 31, 2012. Id. 

Toscelik reported that it received 

benefits under this program during the 

POR, because its Osmaniye plant is 

located in the OIZ zone in the Osmaniye 

province which is one of the 49 eligible 

provinces. See Toscelik’s August QR at 

6. As explained above, because Toscelik 

produces hot-rolled coils at the 

Osmaniye plant that can be used as an 

input into the subject merchandise, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

nothing on the record that demonstrates 

that this program is precluded from 

benefitting the subject merchandise. See 

‘‘Law 5084: Withholding of Income Tax 

on Wages and Salaries’’ section above. 

In these Preliminary Results, we also 

find that during the period of review, 

Toscelik benefitted from the forgiveness 

on payments for the employer’s share of 

social security payments under this OIZ 

program pursuant to Section 

771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act in the amount of 

the social security insurance premiums 

that it did not pay. We also find that this 

program is regionally-specific under 

771(5A)(D)(iv) because it is limited to 

companies located in the 49 eligible 

provinces. Moreover, we find that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone within the meaning of section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act to the extent that 

it relieves Toscelik of the obligation to 

pay social security insurance premiums 

that it would have had to pay absent 

this program. 

To calculate the benefit from the 

social security insurance premium relief 

that Toscelik received under the 

insurance premiums program, we 

summed the total amount of insurance 

premium savings reported by Toscelik 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.509(a)(1). To calculate the net 

subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by 

Toscelk’s total f.o.b. sales during the 

POR. On this basis, we preliminarily 

determined Toscelik’s net subsidy rate 

under this program to be 0.15 percent 

ad valorem. 

H. Law 5084: Allocation of Free Land 

The Ministry of Science, Industry and 

Technology General Directorate of 

Industrial Zones administers the free 

land allocation support program. See 

GOT’s September QR at I–21. According 

to the GOT, all enterprises or industries 

established in the 49 provinces which 

have a GDP per capita equal to or less 

than 1,550 US dollars (as determined by 

the State Institute of Statistics as of 

2001) or which have a negative socioeconomic development index value (as 

determined by the State Planning 

Organization as of 2003) that are also 

located in OIZs can benefit from free 

land allocation support pursuant to 

Provisional Article 1 of Law 5084. See 

September QR at I–22 and GOT’s June 

QR at Exhibit 24. The GOT further states 

that although the main provisions 

regarding the land allocation support for 

OIZs are regulated under Provisional 

Article 1, both Article 5 of Law 5084 

and Provisional Article 1 govern the 

land allocation support. Id. The GOT 

further states that pursuant to Article 2, 

paragraph 1, clause (b) of Law 5084, the 

Allocation of Investment Sites Free of 

Charge is provided not only for 

aforementioned 49 provinces, but also 

for other provinces covered under the 

priority regions for development. Id. at 

I–23 and Exhibit 9. According to the 

GOT, the objective of this program is to 

reduce inter-regional disparities and to 

increase employment in provinces 

where the development is relatively 

low. Id. 

With respect to companies in the 

OIZs, the GOT states that pursuant to 

Provisional Article 1, non-allocated 

parcels in the OIZ, located in the 

provinces subject to clause (b) of Article 

2 of Law 5084 can be allocated to real 

or legal entities free of charge provided 

that the competent bodies of the OIZ 

decide accordingly. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–24. According to the 

GOT, in OIZs under this program, free 

parcels were allocated to companies that 

employ at least ten employees. Id. The 

GOT states that OIZs are established 

anywhere in Turkey regardless of the 

geographic location with the aim of 

gathering the industrial facilities in 

well-coordinated manner with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19630 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

necessary infrastructures. Id. The GOT 

states that the implementation of the 

program initiated on February 6, 2004, 

and remained in force until February 6, 

2010, the end of the validity period 

mentioned in paragraph 4, Provisional 

Article 1. Id. 

According to the GOT, to apply for 

this program the investor fills out the 

application form and submits it to the 

OIZ administration. See September QR 

at I–25. The GOT states that the OIZ 

administration decides whether or not 

to allocate the land to the investor 

within 30 days. Id. If the application is 

approved, then a Free Land Allocation 

Agreement is signed by the investor and 

the OIZ Administration and sent to the 

Ministry of Science, Industry and 

Technology. Id. According to the GOT, 

the investors who have benefited from 

free land allocation support are 

obligated to start production in two 

years at the latest while employing at 

least 10 people. Id. The GOT states that 

at the end of this period the land 

allocation of investors who have not 

started production are cancelled. Id. In 

addition, the land allocations of 

investors who have ceased investment 

are cancelled. Id. 

Toscelik reported that it received free 

land in the Osmaniye OIZ under Law 

5084 Provisional Article 1. See 

Toscelik’s August 29, 2011 QR at 8. 

Toscelik reports that the land transfer 

was made on December 29, 2008 in a 

single installment. Id. at 10. Toscelik 

further reported that the land is the site 

of the entire Osmaniye facility, 

including the steel mill and the rolling 

mill that produces the coils that feed the 

spiral pipe mill in Osmaniye. See 

Toscelik’s January 30, 2012, 

questionnaire response (January 30 QR) 

at 2. In addition, the site includes the 

welded pipe mill in Iskenderun, as well 

as the billets that feed the bar mill at 

Tosyali Demir in Iskenderun. Id. 

In these Preliminary Results, we find 

that during the period of review, 

Toscelik benefitted from the provision 

of free land under this OIZ program 

pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the 

Act in that it was able to obtain goods 

(i.e., land) for less than it would 

otherwise pay in the absence of this 

subsidy. We also find that this program 

is regionally-specific under 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it is 

limited to companies located in the 49 

eligible provinces. Moreover, we find 

that this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of land 

provided for less than adequate 

remuneration (LTAR) within the 

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

Act. 

We preliminarily determine to rely on 

publicly available information 

concerning industrial land prices in 

Turkey for purposes of calculating a 

comparable commercial benchmark 

price for land available in Turkey. See 

Memorandum to the File from Eric B. 

Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 3, 

Operations, ‘‘Placement of Land Price 

Information on Record of Review,’’ 

(March 26, 2012) (Land Price 

Memorandum), a public document 

available via IA Access in Room 7046 of 

the Central Records Unit in the 

Commerce Building. We find this land 

price may serve as a comparable 

commercial benchmark under 19 

CFR.351.511(a)(2)(i). 

We considered other potential 

benchmarks submitted on the record but 

have preliminarily determined not to 

use them. Toscelik submitted 

transaction information with regard to 

an adjacent plot of land that it 

purchased from the GOT. See Toscelik’s 

August QR at 9 and Exhibit 11 and 

Toscelik’s February 8, 2012 QR at 1. 

However, we preliminarily determine 

that we cannot use this price as a 

commercial benchmark under 19 CFR 

351.511(a)(2)(i) because it pertains to 

prices charged by the very provider of 

the good at issue, and we would not 

normally use these prices for 

comparison purposes under tier one or 

tier two where other more appropriate 

benchmark data are available. Our 

approach in this regard is consistent 

with the Department’s practice. See 

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), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11. In addition, the GOT 

submitted a land valuation that it uses 

to calculate property taxes in the 

Osmaniye region. See GOT’s February 8, 

2012 QR at 7. However, information 

from the GOT indicates that this land 

value represents a ‘‘minimum’’ land 

price. Id. Because the land value from 

the GOT is a ‘‘minimum’’ price, we 

preliminarily determine that it cannot 

serve as a viable commercial benchmark 

under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(1). 

To calculate the benefit, we 

multiplied the area of land Toscelik 

obtained free of charge from the GOT by 

the unit benchmark land price 

discussed above. Next, we performed 

the 0.5 percent test by dividing the 

benefit by Toscelik’s total sales in 2008. 

See 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). The resulting 

ratio exceeded 0.5 percent of Toscelik’s 

total sales, therefore, we allocated a 

portion of the benefit to the POR using 

the Department’s standard grant 

allocation formula. See 19 CFR 

351.524(d). We lack company-specific 

information concerning interest rates 

charged to Toscelik on long-term debt. 

We also lack information from the GOT 

concerning long-term interest rates in 

Turkey. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), we used the 

national average discount rate in Turkey 

for 2008 as the long-term discount rate 

utilized in the grant allocation formula. 

In its questionnaire response, Toscelik 

argues that the Department should use 

a 55-year AUL that corresponds to a 

depreciation schedule utilized in its 

financial statement for purposes of 

performing the grant allocation 

calculation described under 19 CFR 

351.524(d). See Toscelik’s August 29, 

2011, questionnaire response at 16. 

However, for purposes of the 

preliminary results, we used the 

standard 15-year AUL described above 

in the ‘‘Allocation Period’’ section when 

conducting the grant allocation 

calculation. Our approach in this regard 

is consistent with the Department’s 

approach in other land for less than 

adequate remuneration (LTAR) 

programs involving the outright sale of 

land. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 

Republic of Korea, 67 FR 62102 

(September 23, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Provision of Land at 

Asan Bay, in which the Department 

used the standard AUL for the steel 

industry, as indicated by the IRS tables, 

to allocate benefits received under a 

land for LTAR program to the period of 

investigation. 

To calculate the net subsidy rate, we 

divided the benefit by Toscelk’s total 

f.o.b. sales during the POR. On this 

basis, we preliminarily determined 

Toscelik’s net subsidy rate under this 

program to be 0.11 percent ad valorem. 

I. Law 5084: Energy Support 

The Ministry of Economy, General 

Directorate of Incentives and 

Implementation and Foreign 

Investments administers the energy 

support program pursuant to Article 2 

and Article 6 of Law 5084. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–13 and July QR at 

Exhibit 23. According to the GOT the 

main objective of this program is to 

reduce inter-regional disparities and to 

increase employment. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–14. According to the 

GOT, all enterprises or industries 

established in the 49 provinces which 

have a GDP per capita equal to or less 

than 1,550 US dollars (as determined by 

the State Institute of Statistics as of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19631 

2001) or which have a negative socioeconomic development index value (as 

determined by the State Planning 

Organization as of 2003) can benefit 

from this program. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–14 and GOT’s June 

QR at Exhibit 24. 

The GOT states that enterprises 

operating or investing in the designated 

provinces are eligible for the support at 

rates ranging from 20 percent to 50 

percent of the cost of electricity energy 

consumption, depending on their 

existing employment levels and the 

number of new hires. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–14. Specifically, 

eligible businesses should operate in 

animal husbandry (including 

aquaculture and poultry), organic and 

biotechnological agriculture, mushroom 

cultivation and composting, greenhouse 

production, certificated seed 

production, cooling warehouse, 

manufacturing industry, mining, 

tourism accommodation, education or 

health services. In addition, these 

businesses should have at least 10 

employees. See GOT’s September QR at 

I–14 and GOT’s July QR at Exhibit 23. 

According to the GOT, the energy 

support rate is applied as 20 percent of 

energy cost of the undertaking. The 

energy support rate increases 0.5 point 

for (1) each additional employee above 

10 employees hired by newly 

established undertakings which started 

business as of April 1, 2005 or (2) for 

each additional employee above 10 

employees who were hired after the date 

set by the Law for operating 

undertakings which stared business 

before April 1, 2005. Id. According to 

the GOT, energy support shall not 

exceed 50 percent of the electricity costs 

of the undertakings operating in OIZs or 

Industry Zones and 40 percent of these 

costs for the undertakings operating in 

other areas. Id. 

According to the GOT, in order to 

benefit from energy support, eligible 

firms must apply to the Provincial 

Offices of the Ministry of Science, 

Industry and Technology. See GOT’s 

September QR at I–16. The program is 

implemented by a provincial Energy 

Support Commission (Commission) 

which is chaired by the provincial 

governor or lieutenant governor. Id. The 

Commission is constituted from 

delegates from Provincial Offices of the 

Ministry of Science, Industry and 

Technology, Ministry of Finance (Tax 

Office), Ministry of Labor and Social 

Security (Provincial Offices of Social 

Security Institution), Turkish Electricity 

Distribution Company and OIZ if any. 

Id. The Commission evaluates the 

applications according to the 

information provided in the application 

form and other documents submitted 

with regard to their conformity to the 

conditions set by the related legislation. 

Id. If a firm is found eligible, the 

Commission also determines the rate of 

energy support to be applied for that 

firm. Id. 

Toscelik reported that it received 

energy subsidies during the POR. See 

Toscelik’s August 29 QR at 13. 

According to Toscelik all energy 

subsidies received by the Osmaniye 

facility relate solely to the portion of the 

Osmaniye facility that produces spiralwelded pipe. See Toscelik’s January 30 

QR at 3. Toscelik points to its August 29 

QR and asserts that documentation in 

Exhibit 12 demonstrates that the 

benefits from this program are 

attributable solely to ‘‘spiral energy 

support deduction,’’ i.e., the support for 

energy expenses relating to the spiralpipe production facility. See Toscelik’s 

January 30 QR at 3. Toscelik further 

maintains that the investment certificate 

which is related to the Osmaniye facility 

is explicitly only related to the spiral 

pipe production line. Id. Moreover, 

Toscelik asserts that there is no other 

investment certificate for the other 

aspects of Toscelik’s Osmaniye 

operation. Id. 

When a respondent claims that that a 

subsidy is tied to non-subject 

merchandise, the respondent must 

provide evidence to substantiate their 

claim. We preliminarily determine that 

the document to which Toscelik cites in 

Exhibit 12 of its response does not 

establish a tie between the subsidy and 

the non-subject merchandise. 

Furthermore, with respect to the 

investment certificate cited, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

language on the certificate does not 

indicate that the subsidy in question is 

linked specifically to spiral pipe. 

Therefore, as explained above, because 

Toscelik produces hot-rolled coils at the 

Osmaniye plant that can be used as an 

input into the subject merchandise, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

nothing on the record that demonstrates 

that this program is precluded from 

benefitting the subject merchandise. See 

‘‘Law 5084: Withholding of Income Tax 

on Wages and Salaries’’ section above. 

In these Preliminary Results, we also 

find that during the period of review, 

Toscelik benefitted from the energy 

subsidies under this OIZ program 

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

Act in that it was able to obtain goods 

(i.e., electricity) for less than it would 

otherwise pay in the absence of this 

subsidy. We also find that this program 

is regionally-specific under 

771(5A)(D)(iv) because it is limited to 

companies located in the 49 eligible 

provinces. Moreover, we find that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of electricity 

provided at LTAR within the meaning 

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

To calculate the benefit from the 

energy subsidies that Toscelik received 

under the energy support program, we 

summed the total amount of energy 

subsidies reported by Toscelik during 

the POR and treated it as a nonrecurring grant. Next, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we 

determined whether to allocate the nonrecurring benefit from the grant over 

Toscelik’s AUL by dividing the 

approved amount by Toscelik’s total 

f.o.b. sales during the POR. The 

resulting ratio was less than 0.5 percent 

of Toscelik’s total f.o.b. sales, therefore 

we allocated the benefit to the POR. On 

this basis, we preliminarily determine 

Toscelik’s net subsidy rate under this 

program to be 0.02 percent ad valorem. 

J. OIZ: Exemption from Property Tax 

Toscelik reported that it received an 

exemption from property tax with 

respect to its Osmanye facilities because 

of their location in the OIZ, during the 

POR. See Toscelik’s August 29, 2011 QR 

at 14. In these Preliminary Results, we 

find that during the period of review, 

Toscelik benefitted from the exemption 

from property tax under this OIZ 

program pursuant to Section 771(5)(E)(i) 

of the Act in the amount of the property 

taxes that it did not pay. We also find 

that this program is regionally-specific 

under 771(5A)(D)(iv) because it is 

limited to companies located in the OIZ. 

Moreover, we find that this program 

constitutes a financial contribution in 

the form of revenue forgone within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.503(iii) to the 

extent that it relieves Toscelik of the 

obligation to pay property taxes that it 

would have had to pay absent this 

program. 

To calculate the benefit from the tax 

relief that Toscelik received under the 

property tax exemption program, we 

took the total amount of property tax 

savings reported by Toscelik during the 

POR and divided the amount of the 

benefit by Toscelik’s total f.o.b. sales 

during the POR. On this basis, we 

preliminarly determine Toscelik’s net 

subsidy rate under this program to be 

0.01 percent ad valorem. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

19 During the POR, the IPC was implemented 

under Resolution No. 2005/8391. A copy of this 

resolution was submitted by the GOT in its June 28, 

2011, initial questionnaire response at Exhibit 20. 

20See GOT’s Initial Questionnaire Response at 41; 

see also pages 42–43 and Exhibit 20 for additional 

information on D–3 certificates. 

21See Toscelik’s Initial Questionnaire Response 

at Exhibit 15. See Borusan’s Initial Questionnaire 

Response at Exhibit 31. 

22See Turkey Pipe 2004 Decision Memorandum, 

Turkey Pipe 2005 Preliminary Results, Turkey Pipe 

2006 Preliminary Results, and NSR Preliminary 

Results. 

II. Programs Preliminary Determined 

To Not Confer Countervailable Benefits 

During the POR 

A. Inward Processing Certificate 

Exemption 

Under the Inward Processing 

Certificate (IPC) 19 program, companies 

are exempt from paying customs duties 

and VAT on raw materials and 

intermediate unfinished goods imported 

to be used in the production of exported 

goods. Companies may choose whether 

to be exempt from the applicable duties 

and taxes upon importation (i.e., the 

Suspension System) or have the duties 

and taxes reimbursed after exportation 

of the finished goods (i.e., the Drawback 

System). Under the Suspension System, 

companies provide a letter of guarantee 

that is returned to them upon 

fulfillment of the export commitment. 

See GOT’s initial QR at II–41 and II–42. 

To participate in this program, a 

company must hold an IPC, which lists 

the amount of raw materials/ 

intermediate unfinished goods to be 

imported and the amount of product to 

be exported. See GOT’s initial QR at II– 

43. The Undersecretariat for Foreign 

Trade/General Directorate of Exports is 

the authority responsible for 

administrating the program. Id. at II–40. 

To obtain an IPC, an exporter must 

submit an application, which states the 

amount of imported raw material 

required to produce the finished 

products and a ‘‘letter of export 

commitment,’’ which specifies that the 

importer of materials will use the 

materials to produce exported goods. Id. 

at II–43. Once an IPC is issued, the 

producer must show the certificate to 

Turkish customs each time it imports 

raw materials on a duty exempt basis. 

Id. There are two types of IPCs: (1) D– 

1 certificate for imported raw materials 

or intermediate unfinished goods used 

in the production of exported goods, 

and (2) D–3 certificate for imported raw 

materials or intermediate unfinished 

goods used in the production of goods 

sold in the domestic market and defined 

as ‘‘domestic sales and deliveries 

considered as exports.’’ 20 During the 

POR, Borusan and Toscelik used D–1 

certificates for the importation of raw 

materials used in the production of 

exported pipe and tube. No respondent 

used a D–3 certificate during the POR.21

Concerning D–1 certificates, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(ii), a benefit 

exists to the extent that the exemption 

extends to inputs that are not consumed 

in the production of the exported 

product, making normal allowances for 

waste, or if the exemption covers 

charges other than import charges that 

are imposed on the input. With regard 

to the VAT exemption granted under 

this program, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.517(a), in the case of the exemption 

upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit 

exists to the extent that the Department 

determines that the amount exempted 

exceeds the amount levied with respect 

to the production and distribution of 

like products when sold for domestic 

consumption. 

In prior reviews, the Department has 

found that, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.519(a)(4)(i), the GOT has a system 

in place to confirm which inputs, and 

in what amounts are consumed in the 

production of the exported product, and 

that the system is reasonable for the 

purposes intended. See, e.g., Turkey 

Pipe 2004 Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Inward Processing Certificate 

Exemption’’ under ‘‘Programs 

Determined to Not Confer 

Countervailable Benefits.’’ The 

Department has also found that the 

exemption granted on certain methods 

of payments used in purchasing 

imported raw materials under this 

program does not constitute a subsidy 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.517(a), because 

the tax exempted upon export does not 

exceed the amount of tax levied on like 

products when sold for domestic 

consumption. See Wire Rod 

Memorandum at ‘‘Inward Processing 

Certificate Exemptions’’ and Comment 

8. No new information is on the record 

of this review to warrant a 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

earlier findings. 

During the POR, under D–1 

certificates, Borusan and Toscelik 

received duty and VAT exemptions on 

certain imported inputs used in the 

production of steel pipes and tubes. See 

Toscelik’s Initial Questionnaire 

Response at Exhibit 16; see also 

Borusan’s July 14, 2011, Questionnaire 

Response at 14. Consistent with the 

Department’s findings in Turkey Pipe 

2004 Final and based on our review of 

the information supplied by the 

respondents regarding this program, we 

preliminarily determine there is no 

evidence on the record of this review 

that indicates the amount of exempted 

inputs imported under the program 

were excessive or that the firms used the 

imported inputs for any other product 

besides those exported. 

Therefore, consistent with past 

cases,22 we preliminarily determine that 

the tax and duty exemptions, which 

Borusan and Toscelik received on 

imported inputs under D–1 certificates 

of the IPC program, did not confer 

countervailable benefits as each 

company consumed the imported inputs 

in the production of the exported 

product, making normal allowance for 

waste. We further preliminarily find 

that the VAT exemption did not confer 

countervailable benefits on Borusan or 

Toscelik because the exemption does 

not exceed the amount levied with 

respect to the production and 

distribution of like products when sold 

for domestic consumption. Further, 

because Borusan and Toscelik did not 

import any goods under a D–3 

certificate during the POR, we 

preliminarily determine that this aspect 

of the IPC program was not used. 

B. Investment Encouragement Program 

(IEP): Customs Duty Exemptions 

The GOT provides IEPs that qualified 

recipients can use to import items duty 

free. In past CVD proceedings, the 

Department has repeatedly found this 

program to be not countervailable 

because benefits are not specific. See 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard 

Pipe from Turkey: Preliminary Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, (Turkey Pipe 2008 Preliminary 

Results), 75 FR 16439, 16443 (April 1, 

2010), unchanged in Certain Welded 

Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from 

Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

44766 (July 29, 2010). However, based 

on allegations from petitioners in which 

they alleged changes to the program 

starting in January 1, 2009, the 

Department initiated an investigation of 

this program as it pertains to licenses 

issued after January 1, 2009. Toscelik 

and Borusan reported using this 

program. See Toscelik’s December 12 

QR at 1–2 and January 30 QR at 7 and 

Exhibit 5; see also Borusan’s December 

12, 2011, at 5. Concerning Toscelik, its 

use of the program was limited to IEP 

licenses that it received prior to January 

1, 2009. Thus, we preliminarily 

determine that Toscelik’s use of this 

program did not confer any 

countervailable benefits during the POR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 19633 

because the duty exemptions that 

Toscelik received relate to IEP licenses 

that the Department has previously 

determined were distributed in a 

manner that were not specific. See 

Turkey Pipe 2008 Preliminary Results, 

75 FR at16439, 16443 (April 1, 2010). 

Concerning Borusan, it reported 

receiving an IEP license after January 1, 

2009, that allowed it to import a piece 

of equipment at a reduced duty rate. 

Borusan argues that the receipt of duty 

exemptions on this license was 

contingent upon the firm using the 

equipment to produce spiral welded 

pipe, which is non-subject merchandise. 

Upon review of the IEP license in 

question, we preliminarily determine 

that the benefit Borusan received on this 

license was tied to the production of 

spiral welded pipe at the time of 

bestowal. See Borusan’s December 12, 

2011, new subsidies allegations 

questionnaire response at p. 5–7 and 

Exhibits S3–2 and S3–3. Thus, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

benefits Borusan received under this 

program are tied to non-subject 

merchandise. 

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Not Be Used 

We examined the following programs 

and preliminarily determine that 

Borusan and Toscelik did not apply for 

or receive benefits under these programs 

during the POR: 

A. Post-Shipment Export Loans 

B. Export Credit Bank of Turkey Buyer 

Credits 

C. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit Facilities 

D. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of Fixed 

Expenditures 

E. Subsidized Credit in Foreign Currency 

F. Regional Subsidies 

G. VAT Support Program (Incentive Premium 

on Domestically Obtained Goods) 

H. IEP: VAT Exemptions 

I. IEP: Reductions in Corporate Taxes 

J. IEP: Interest Support 

K. IEP: Social Security Premium Support 

L. IEP: Land Allocation 

M. National Restructuring Program 

N. Regional Incentive Scheme: Reduced 

Corporate Tax Rates 

O. Regional Incentive Scheme: Social 

Security Premium Contribution for 

Employees 

P. Regional Incentive Scheme: Allocation of 

State Land 

Q. Regional Incentive Scheme: Interest 

Support 

R. OIZ: Waste Water Charges 

S. OIZ: Exemptions from Customs Duties, 

VAT, and Payments for Public Housing 

Fund, for Investments for which an 

Income Certificate is Received 

T. OIZ: Credits for Research and 

Development Investments, 

Environmental Investments, Certain 

Technology Investments, Certain 

‘‘Regional Development’’ Investments, 

and Investments Moved from Developed 

regions to ‘‘Regions of Special Purpose’’ 

U. Provision of Buildings and Land Use 

Rights for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration under the Free Zones Law 

V. Corporate Income Tax Exemption under 

the Free Zones Law 

W. Stamp Duties and Fees Exemptions under 

the Free Zones Law 

X. Customs Duties Exemptions under the 

Free Zones Law 

Y. Value-Added Tax Exemptions under the 

Free Zones Law 

Z. OIZ: Exemption from Building and 

Construction Charges 

AA. OIZ: Exemption from Amalgamation and 

Allotment Transaction Charges 

Verification 

The Department’s regulations provide 

that factual information upon which the 

Secretary relies for the final results of an 

administrative review will be verified if 

a domestic party timely requests 

verification and the Secretary has not 

conducted verification during either of 

the two immediately preceding 

administrative reviews. See 19 CFR 

351.307(b)(1)(v). While U.S. Steel timely 

requested that the Department conduct 

verification in this review, the 

Department has conducted verifications 

of Toscelik and Borusan during both of 

the immediately preceding 

administrative reviews. Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.307(b)(1)(iv)(B), we are not verifying 

Toscelik and Borusan in this 

administrative review. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for each 

producer/exporter subject to this 

administrative review. For the period 

January 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010, we preliminarily determine the 

following total net countervailable 

subsidy rates: for Borusan is 0.27 

percent ad valorem, and for Toscelik is 

0.35 percent ad valorem; these rates are 

de minimis, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. If the final results 

remain the same as these preliminary 

results, the Department will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

countervailing duties all shipments of 

subject merchandise produced by 

Borusan and Toscelik entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption from January 1, 2010, 

through December 31, 2010. The 

Department will also instruct CBP not to 

collect cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties on all shipments 

of the subject merchandise produced by 

Borusan and Toscelik, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

collect cash deposits for non-reviewed 

companies at the most recent companyspecific or country-wide rate applicable 

to the company. Accordingly, the cash 

deposit rates that will be applied to 

companies covered by this order, but 

not examined in this review, are those 

established in the most recently 

completed administrative proceeding 

for each company. Those rates shall 

apply to all non-reviewed companies 

until a review of a company assigned 

these rates is completed. 

These cash deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of the public 

announcement of this notice. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties 

may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Case and rebuttal briefs will be due at 

the dates specified by the Department. 

The Department will notify interested 

parties of the case and rebuttal due 

dates once those dates are finalized. 

Parties who submit argument in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) A statement of the 

issues, and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties submitting case and/ 

or rebuttal briefs are requested to 

provide the Department copies of the 

public version on disk. Case and 

rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice, 

interested parties may request a public 

hearing on arguments to be raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the 

Secretary specifies otherwise, the 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. 

Representatives of parties to the 

proceeding may request disclosure of 

proprietary information under 

administrative protective order no later 

than 10 days after the representative’s 

client or employer becomes a party to 

the proceeding, but in no event later 

than the date the case briefs, under 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), are due. The 

Department will publish the final 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19634 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Notices 

1Petitioners are DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 

Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc. and Toray Plastics 

(America), Inc. 

2See Message number 1285302, available at 

http://addcvd.cbp.gov. 

3See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, from Elfi 

Blum, International Trade Analyst titled 

‘‘Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty 

Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Respondent Selection 

Memorandum,’’ dated October 21, 2011. 

4See, e.g., Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe 

and Tube from Turkey: Notice of Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, In Part, 

74 FR 47921 (September 18, 2009). 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

arguments made in any case or rebuttal 

briefs. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7846 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–825] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip From India: Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 2, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Page, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1398. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background 

On July 1, 2011, the Department of 

Commerce (Department) published a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet 

and strip from India covering the period 

January 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 76 

FR 38609, 38610 (July 1, 2011). The 

Department received a timely request 

from Petitioners 1 for a CVD 

administrative review of five 

companies: Ester Industries Limited 

(Ester), Garware Polyester Ltd. 

(Garware), Jindal Poly Films Limited of 

India (Jindal), Polyplex Corporation Ltd. 

(Polyplex), and SRF Limited (SRF). The 

Department also received timely 

requests for a CVD review from Vacmet 

India Ltd. (Vacmet) and Polypacks 

Industries of India (Polypacks). 

On August 26, 2011, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review with respect to 

Ester, Garware, Jindal, Polyplex, SRF, 

Vacmet, and Polypacks. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404 

(August 26, 2011) (Initiation Notice). 

Prior to the publication of the Initiation 

Notice, Vacmet and Polypacks timely 

withdrew their requests for an 

administrative review. On September 

20, 2011, the Department published a 

rescission, in part, of the CVD 

administrative review with respect to 

Vacmet and Polypacks. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip From India: Rescission, In 

Part, of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 58248 

(September 20, 2011). 

On September 12, 2011, SRF filed a 

certification of no shipments and 

requested that the Department rescind 

the CVD administrative review of the 

company. On November 25, 2011, 

Petitioners timely withdrew their 

request for CVD administrative reviews 

of Ester, Garware, Polyplex, and Jindal. 

The Department published a rescission, 

in part, of the CVD administrative 

review with respect to Ester, Garware, 

Polyplex, and Jindal on January 11, 

2012. See Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip From India: 

Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 1668 

(January 11, 2012). The administrative 

review of SRF continued. 

Rescission of Review 

On February 21, 2012, we published 

a notice of intent to rescind this CVD 

administrative review with respect to 

SRF, and invited interested parties to 

comment. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

from India: Preliminary Intent to 

Rescind Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 77 FR 9892 

(February 21, 2012) (Intent to Rescind). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department may rescind an 

administrative review with respect to a 

particular exporter or producer, if the 

Secretary concludes that, during the 

period covered by the review, there 

were no entries, exports, or sales of the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States by that exporter or producer. SRF 

submitted a letter on September 12, 

2011, certifying that it did not have any 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the period of 

review (POR). The Department received 

no comments from any other party on 

SRF’s no-shipment claim. 

We issued a ‘‘no shipments inquiry’’ 

message to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), which posted the 

message on October 12, 2011.2 We also 

conducted a CBP data query for this 

case on October 21, 2011, which we 

placed on the record.3 We did not 

receive any information from CBP to 

contradict SRF’s claim of no sales, 

shipments, or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. See Memorandum to the File 

through Barbara E. Tillman, Director, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, titled 

‘‘Claim of No Shipments from SRF 

Limited in the 2010 Administrative 

Review of the Countervailing Duty 

Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film, Sheet and Strip from India,’’ dated 

February 14, 2012. Furthermore, the 

Department received no comments from 

parties on the Intent to Rescind. 

As such, we determine that there were 

no entries during the POR of subject 

merchandise produced or exported by 

SRF. Therefore, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with 

our practice,4 we are rescinding the 

review for SRF. Because SRF is the sole 

remaining company in this 

administrative review, the rescission 

with respect to SRF results in a 

rescission of this administrative review 

in its entirety. 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct CBP to 

assess countervailing duties on all 

appropriate entries. Subject 

merchandise exported by SRF will be 

assessed CVDs at rates equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated CVDs required at 

the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of this notice. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES