[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18086-18087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9549]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-412-811]


Notice of Court Decision: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth 
Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1997.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 10, 1997, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) affirmed the International Trade Administration's remand 
determination that the Special Steels Business, a productive unit of 
the state-owned British Steel Corporation, was not a person or an 
artificial person and, therefore, was not capable of receiving a 
subsidy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Malmrose, AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office I, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5414.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 27, 1993, in the Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot Rolled Lead 
and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom (58 FR 6237), 
the International Trade Administration (ITA) determined that subsidies 
previously bestowed on the state-owned British Steel Corporation (BSC) 
passed through, in part, to United Engineering Steels, Ltd. (UES), a 
joint-venture

[[Page 18087]]

company, when UES purchased the Special Steels Business (SSB), one of 
BSC's productive units, in an arm's-length transaction. The ITA's 
determination was appealed. The ITA subsequently requested, and was 
granted, a remand in order to reconsider its final determination. On 
remand, the ITA adopted its reasoning in Certain Steel Products From 
the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37,393 (July 9, 1993), in which it determined 
that part of the price UES paid for the productive unit purchased from 
BSC constituted payment for prior subsidies. On June 7, 1994, in Inland 
Steel Bar Co. v. United States, 858 F. Supp. 179 (CIT 1994) (Inland I), 
the CIT overturned the ITA's determination that previously bestowed 
subsidies passed through with a productive unit sold in an arm's-length 
transaction to a private party.
    In Inland Steel Bar Co. v. United States, 86 F.3d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 
1996) (Inland II), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded Inland I, 
concluding that the lower court had erred in holding that as a matter 
of law a subsidy could not pass through during an arm's-length 
transaction. The CIT subsequently remanded the case to the ITA to make 
a determination pursuant to British Steel plc v. United States, 879 F. 
Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995) (British Steel I), appeals docketed, Nos. 96-1401 
to -06 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 1996), and British Steel plc v. United 
States, 924 F. Supp. 139 (CIT 1996) (British Steel II), appeals 
docketed, Nos. 96-1401 to -06 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 1996), whether the 
SSB was a productive unit capable of receiving subsidies. Pursuant to 
British Steel I and British Steel II, the ITA determined that the SSB 
was not a productive unit capable of receiving subsidies. This remand 
was affirmed by the CIT in Inland Steel Bar Co. v. United States, Slip 
Op. 97-18 (Feb. 10, 1997) (Inland Steel III).
    In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
held that, pursuant to 19 USC section 1516a(e), the Department must 
publish a notice of a court decision which is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries 
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's opinion in Inland 
Steel III on February 10, 1997, constitutes a decision not in harmony 
with the Department's final affirmative determination. Publication of 
this notice fulfills the Timken requirement.
    Accordingly, the Department will continue to suspend liquidation 
pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a 
``conclusive'' court decision. Absent an appeal, or, if appealed, upon 
a ``conclusive'' court decision affirming the CIT's opinion, the 
countervailing duty order will be revoked effective February 20, 1997.

    Dated: March 27, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-9549 Filed 4-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P