1496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–821] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From India: 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 hot-rolled carbon steel flat 

products from India for the period of 

review (POR) January 1, 2008, through 

December 31, 2008. These preliminary 

results cover one company Tata Steel 

Limited (Tata). For the information on 

the net subsidy rate for the reviewed 

company, see the ‘‘Preliminary Results 

of Review’’ section. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–3338 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 2001, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon 

steel flat products from India. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

and Notice of Countervailing Duty 

Orders: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products From India and Indonesia, 

66 FR 60198 (December 3, 2001). On 

December 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

CVD order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 72764 (December 1, 2008). On 

December 31, 2008, U.S. Steel 

Corporation (Petitioner) requested that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of Essar Steel 

Limited (Essar), Ispat Industries Limited 

(Ispat), JSW Steel Limited (JSW), and 

Tata. 

On February 2, 2009, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon 

steel flat products from India, covering 

the period January 1, 2008, through 

December 31, 2008. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 5821 

(February 2, 2009). 

On February 6, 2009, the Department 

issued a questionnaire to the 

Government of India (GOI), Essar, Ispat, 

JSW, and Tata. On February 6, 2009, 

Essar and JSW notified the Department 

that they had no shipments during the 

POR. On February 9, 2009, Ispat notified 

the Department that it had no shipments 

during the POR. On February 25, 2009, 

Tata notified the Department that it had 

no sales of commercial quantities of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

However, Tata did acknowledge that it 

made certain sales during the POR. On 

March 11, 2009, counsel for Tata met 

with Department officials concerning an 

alleged sale by Tata to the United States 

that is currently on the record of the 

antidumping proceeding. See 

Memorandum to the File regarding 

‘‘Meeting with Counsel for Tata Steel 

Limited,’’ dated March 11, 2009, which 

is on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU) of the main Commerce Building. 

On March 19, 2009, Tata submitted 

information pertaining to an additional 

sale of subject merchandise from India 

in question during the POR. On March 

23, 2009, Tata submitted additional 

data, as requested by the Department, 

which pertains to certain sales during 

the POR. On March 27, 2009, the 

Department made a finding that Tata 

had sales of subject merchandise during 

the POR and extended the due date for 

Tata’s questionnaire response because of 

the confusion as to whether Tata did or 

did not have any sales during the POR. 

See Memorandum to the File regarding 

‘‘Sales by Tata during the POR,’’ dated 

March 27, 2009, which is on file in the 

CRU of the main Commerce Building. 

On April 23, 2009, we received a 

questionnaire response from the GOI. As 

discussed below, the GOI’s submission 

did not contain responses concerning 

certain programs administered by the 

state governments. We issued 

supplemental questionnaires to the GOI 

regarding programs addressed in the 

initial CVD questionnaire, including 

programs administered by the state 

governments. On August 10, 2009 and 

September 24, 2009, the GOI submitted 

responses to the supplemental 

questionnaires; however, it failed to 

respond to certain programs 

administered by the state governments. 

On April 25, 2009, Department 

officials spoke with counsel for Tata 

regarding the company’s failure to 

submit a questionnaire response. Tata’s 

counsel informed the Department that 

the company was no longer 

participating in the administrative 

review and would not be responding to 

the questionnaire. See Memorandum to 

the File regarding ‘‘Phone Conversation 

with Counsel for Tata Steel Limited,’’ 

dated April 23, 2009, which is on file in 

the CRU of the main Commerce 

Building. 

On May 4, 2009, Petitioner withdrew 

its request for review with respect to 

Essar, Ispat, and JSW. As a result, the 

Department rescinded this review, in 

part, on June 4, 2009, with respect to 

Essar, Ispat, and JSW. See Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Products from 

India: Partial Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 26847 (June 4, 2009). On 

August 12, 2009, Petitioner submitted 

comments with respect to the failure by 

Tata to cooperate in the administrative 

review and argued that the Department 

should resort to adverse facts available 

(AFA) when determining the net 

subsidy to apply to Tata. On October 14, 

2009, Tata submitted a letter in which 

it responded to Petitioner’s comments 

concerning the AFA rate to be applied 

to Tata in the instant review. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), this review covers only 

those producers or exporters for which 

a review was specifically requested. The 

company subject to this review is Tata. 

This review covers 93 programs. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel 

products of a rectangular shape, of a 

width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither 

clad, plated, nor coated with metal and 

whether or not painted, varnished, or 

coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers), regardless of thickness, and in 

straight lengths, of a thickness of less 

than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring 

at least 10 times the thickness. 

Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled 

products rolled on four faces or in a 

closed box pass, or a width exceeding 

150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, 

and of a thickness of not less than 4 

mm, not in coils and without patterns 

in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 

mm is not included within the scope of 

the order. 

Specifically included in the scope of 

the order are vacuum degassed, fully 

stabilized (commonly referred to as 

interstitial-free (IF) steels, high-strength 

low-alloy (HSLA) steels, and the 

substrate for motor lamination steels. IF 

steels are recognized as low-carbon 

steels with micro-alloying levels of 

elements such as titanium or niobium 

(also commonly referred to as 

columbium), or both, added to stabilize 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1497 

carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA 

steels are recognized as steels with 

micro-alloying levels of elements such 

as chromium, copper, niobium, 

vanadium, and molybdenum. The 

substrate for motor lamination steels 

contains micro-alloying levels of 

elements such as silicon and aluminum. 

Steel products included in the scope 

of the order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS), are products in 

which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, 

over each of the other contained 

elements; (ii) the carbon content is two 

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

of the elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, respectively 

indicated: 

1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 percent of silicon, or 

1.00 percent of copper, or 

0.50 percent of aluminum, or 

1.25 percent of chromium, or 

0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

0.40 percent of lead, or 

1.25 percent of nickel, or 

0.30 percent of tungsten, or 

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

0.10 percent of niobium, or 

0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. 

All products that meet the physical 

and chemical description provided 

above are within the scope of the order 

unless otherwise excluded. The 

following products, by way of example, 

are outside or specifically excluded 

from the scope of the order. 

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in 

which at least one of the chemical 

elements exceeds those listed above 

(including, e.g., ASTM specifications 

A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). 

• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and 

higher. 

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in 

the HTS. 

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS. 

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the 

HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a 

silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. 

• ASTM specifications A710 and 

A736. 

• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS 

AR 400, USS AR 500). 

• All products (proprietary or 

otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM 

specification (sample specifications: 

ASTM A506, A507). 

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in 

coils, which are the result of having 

been processed by cutting or stamping 

and which have assumed the character 

of articles or products classified outside 

chapter 72 of the HTS. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable in the HTS at 

subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 

7208.40.60.30, 7208.53.00.00, 

7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 

7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 

7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 

7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 

7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 

7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flatrolled carbon-quality steel covered by 

the order, including: vacuum-degassed 

fully stabilized; high-strength low-alloy; 

and the substrate for motor lamination 

steel may also enter under the following 

tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 

7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 

7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 

7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 

7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 

7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 

7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 

7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. 

Subject merchandise may also enter 

under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 

7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 

7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. 

Although the HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the merchandise subject 

to the order is dispositive. 

Adverse Facts Available 

I. The GOI 

As discussed above, on February 6, 

2009, the Department issued the initial 

questionnaire to Tata and the GOI, 

including state governments. The GOI 

filed a response to the Department’s 

initial questionnaire on April 23, 2009 

(April QR). However, the GOI failed to 

provide responses with regard to certain 

programs administered by the state 

governments of Gujarat, Maharashtra, 

Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and 

Karnataka. On July 30, 2009, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to the GOI and again 

requested responses with regard to the 

state government programs. The GOI 

submitted a response on August 10, 

2009, but again failed to provide 

responses with regard to the programs 

administered by the state governments. 

On August 21, 2009, the Department 

issued another supplemental 

questionnaire to the GOI requesting 

additional information from the state 

governments mentioned above, as well 

as additional and clarifying information 

from the state government of Jharkhand 

concerning its responses in the April 

QR. In its response, the GOI again failed 

to submit responses with regard to the 

programs administered by the state 

governments. On September 10, 2009, 

the Department issued to the GOI a final 

supplemental questionnaire in which 

we requested a second time the same 

information from the August 21, 2009, 

supplemental questionnaire on the State 

programs administered by the 

government of Jharkhand. In its 

response, the GOI submitted incomplete 

information on the programs 

administered by the state government of 

Jharkhand. Specifically, in the 

September 24, 2009, questionnaire 

response, the government of Jharkhand 

submitted a brief letter from the 

Department of Industries restating that 

Tata had not received any benefits 

during the POR. No other information or 

documentation requested by the 

Department to demonstrate this claim 

was provided. 

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

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

provide that the Department shall use 

the ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter 

alia, necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person: (A) Withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

possible, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits, the Department may, subject 

to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses. Section 782(e) of the Act 

provides that the Department ‘‘shall not 

decline to consider information that is 

submitted by an interested party and is 

necessary to the determination but does 

not meet all applicable requirements 

established by the administering 

authority’’ if the information is timely, 

can be verified, is not so incomplete that 

it cannot be used, and if the interested 

party has demonstrated that it has acted 

to the best of its ability in providing the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information if 

it can do so without undue difficulties. 

Because the GOI failed to provide the 

requested information by the 

established deadlines, the Department 

does not have the necessary information 

on the record to determine whether the 

subsidies received by Tata under the 

state-administered programs constitute 

financial contributions and are specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, 

respectively. Therefore, the Department 

must base its determination on the facts 

otherwise available in accordance with 

section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use an adverse 

inference in applying the facts 

otherwise available when a party has 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as AFA information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. In a 

countervailing duty proceeding, the 

Department requires information from 

both the government of the country 

whose merchandise is under the order 

and the foreign domestic producers and 

exporters. When the government fails to 

provide requested information 

concerning alleged subsidy programs, 

the Department, as AFA, typically finds 

that a financial contribution exists 

under the alleged program and that the 

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

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 

Plate from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 

11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) 

(unchanged in the Notice of Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

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

the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 38861 (July 

10, 2006) (in which the Department 

relied on adverse inferences in 

determining that the Government of 

Korea directed credit to the steel 

industry in a manner that constituted a 

financial contribution and was specific 

to the steel industry within the meaning 

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

of the Act, respectively). However, the 

Department will normally rely on the 

foreign producer’s or exporter’s records 

to determine the existence and amount 

of the benefit. Consistent with its past 

practice, because the GOI failed to 

provide information concerning certain 

alleged subsidies, the Department, as 

AFA, has determined that those 

programs confer a financial contribution 

and are specific pursuant to sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, 

respectively. The analysis of the extent 

of the benefit, if any, is discussed under 

the sections below entitled ‘‘Programs 

Administered by the Government of 

India’’, ‘‘Programs Administered by the 

State Government of Gujarat,’’ ‘‘Programs 

Administered by the State Government 

of Maharashtra,’’ ‘‘Programs 

Administered by the State Government 

of Andhra Pradesh’’, ‘‘Programs 

Administered by the State Government 

of Jharkhand,’’ ‘‘Programs Administered 

by the State Government of 

Chhattisgarh,’’ and ‘‘Programs 

Administered by the State Government 

of Karantaka.’’ 

In the instant review, Tata did not 

provide the Department with any 

information during the POR, as 

discussed below under the ‘‘Tata’’ 

section. Accordingly, in such instances, 

the Department must base its 

determination on the facts otherwise 

available in accordance with section 

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to 

the programs in the initial questionnaire 

administered by the GOI and state 

governments. 

II. Tata 

With respect to Tata, although the 

company maintains that it had no sales 

of commercial quantities during the 

POR, it provided data concerning sales 

of subject merchandise during the POR 

on March 19 and March 23, 2009. After 

considering the information on the 

record, the Department decided that 

Tata did have sales during the POR and 

requested on March 27, 2009, that Tata 

submit a questionnaire response. See 

Memorandum to the File regarding 

‘‘Sales by Tata during the POR,’’ dated 

March 27, 2009, which is on file in the 

CRU of the main Commerce Building. 

The Department extended Tata’s 

deadline to respond to the initial 

questionnaire. Specifically, on March 

27, 2009, the Department extended the 

March 15, 2009, original deadline until 

April 17, 2009. Id. However, Tata failed 

to provide a response to the initial 

questionnaire. On April 23, 2009, 

Department officials contacted Tata 

regarding its failure to respond to the 

Department’s February 6, 2009 

questionnaire, which was due on April 

17, 2009. See Memorandum to the File 

regarding ‘‘Phone Conversation with 

Counsel for Tata Steel Limited,’’ dated 

April 23, 2009, which is on file in the 

CRU of the main Commerce Building. 

Tata indicated that it would not 

participate in this administrative 

review. Id. No further response has been 

filed by Tata in this segment of the 

proceeding. 

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

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party or any 

other person: (A) Withholds information 

that has been requested; (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding; or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Because Tata failed to provide the 

requested information by the 

established deadlines, the Department 

does not have the necessary information 

to determine the net subsidies received 

by Tata under the GOI administered 

programs as well as those programs 

administered by the state governments. 

Therefore, the Department must base its 

determination on the facts otherwise 

available in accordance with section 

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to 

the GOI and state government programs 

covered in this review. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use an adverse 

inference in applying the fact otherwise 

available when a party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information. Because Tata did not 

provide the requested information on 

any of the programs covered by this 

review, we find that Tata did not act to 

the best of its ability and, therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

are employing adverse inferences in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. Section 776(b) of 

the Act also authorizes the Department 

to use as AFA information derived from 

the petition, the original determination, 

a previous administrative review, or 

other information placed on the record. 

As explained above, due to the GOI’s 

failure to submit a timely response, we 

find that all programs administered by 

the GOI and the state governments 

continued to operate during the POR, 

and that these programs provided 

financial contributions and were 

specific within the meanings of sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, 

respectively. 

Moreover, because Tata failed to 

provide the requested information with 

respect to the GOI and state government 

programs by the established deadlines, 

despite the extensions of time granted 

by the Department, we do not have the 

necessary information to determine the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1499 

1A crore is equal to 10,000,000 rupees. 

net subsidies Tata received from these 

programs. Therefore, as AFA, we find 

that Tata received a benefit from all 

these programs. 

In assigning net subsidy rates for each 

of the programs for which specific 

information was required from Tata, we 

were guided by the Department’s 

approach in the prior reviews as well as 

recent CVD investigations involving the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC). See 

e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from India: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

20923 (May 6, 2009) (Final Results of 

Fifth HRS Review) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(Final Results of Fifth HRS Decision 

Memorandum) at ‘‘SGOC Industrial 

Policy 2004–2009’’ section; see also, 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 

FR 4936 (January 28, 2009) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Application of Facts 

Available and Use of Adverse 

Inferences’’ section. In these preliminary 

results, as AFA, we have first sought to 

apply, where available, the highest, 

above de minimis subsidy rate 

calculated for an identical program from 

any segment of this proceeding. Absent 

such a rate, we have applied, where 

available, the highest, above de minimis 

subsidy rate calculated for a similar 

program from any segment of this 

proceeding. Under our AFA approach, 

absent a subsidy rate calculated for the 

same or similar program, the 

Department applies the highest above de 

minimis, calculated subsidy rate for any 

program from any CVD proceeding 

involving the country in which the 

subject merchandise is produced, so 

long as the producer of the subject 

merchandise or the industry to which it 

belongs could have used the program for 

which the rates were calculated. In the 

instant review, it was not necessary to 

rely on this third prong in the hierarchy 

of our AFA methodology because above 

de minimis subsidy rates for identical 

and/or similar programs were available 

within the proceeding. In accordance 

with this methodology, we have applied 

AFA rates and have assigned these rates 

to Tata for all the subsidy programs as 

discussed further below. 

Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Administered by the 

Government of India 

1. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export 

Financing 

The Department of Banking 

Operations & Development, Directives 

Division of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) 

provides short-term pre-shipment 

export financing, or ‘‘packing credits,’’ to 

exporters through commercial banks. 

Upon presentation of a confirmed 

export order or letter of credit to a bank, 

companies receive pre-shipment credit 

lines upon which they may draw as 

needed. Credit line limits are 

established by commercial banks based 

upon a company’s creditworthiness and 

past export performance, and may be 

denominated either in Indian rupees or 

in foreign currency. Commercial banks 

extending export credit to Indian 

companies must, by law, charge interest 

on this credit at rates capped by the RBI. 

For post-shipment export financing, 

exporters are eligible to receive postshipment short-term credit in the form 

of discounted trade bills or advances by 

commercial banks at preferential 

interest rates to finance the transit 

period between the date of shipment of 

exported merchandise and payment 

from export customers. 

The Department has previously 

determined that these export financing 

programs are countervailable to the 

extent that the interest rates are capped 

by the GOI and are lower than the rates 

exporters would have paid on 

comparable commercial loans. See e.g., 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 6530 (February 12, 2007) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Final Results of 3rd PET 

Film Review Decision Memorandum) at 

‘‘Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment 

Export Financing’’ section. Specifically, 

the Department determined that the 

GOI’s issuance of financing at 

preferential rates constituted a financial 

contribution pursuant to section 

771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and that the 

interest savings under this program 

conferred a benefit pursuant to section 

771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. The Department 

also found this program to be contingent 

upon exports and, therefore, specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(B) of the Act. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been presented in 

this review to warrant a reconsideration 

of the Department’s finding. 

In its questionnaire response, the GOI 

reported that RBI does not maintain 

company-specific accounting records. 

See April QR at 52. Therefore, the GOI 

is unable to provide information as to 

whether Tata applied for, accrued, or 

received benefits under the program 

during the POR. Id. As discussed more 

fully under the ‘‘Adverse Facts 

Available’’ section above, Tata did not 

submit a response to any of the 

Department’s questionnaires and, 

therefore, as AFA pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find 

that Tata used and benefitted from preand post-export financing during the 

POR within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

have assigned a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 

66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) (HRS 

Investigation Final) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum (HRS 

Investigation Decision Memorandum) at 

‘‘Pre- and Post-Export Financing’’ 

section. 

2. Export Promotion of Capital Goods 

Scheme (EPCGS) 

The EPCGS provides for a reduction 

or exemption of customs duties and an 

exemption for excise taxes on imports of 

capital goods. Under this program, 

producers may import capital 

equipment at a reduced customs duty, 

subject to an export obligation equal to 

eight times the duty saved to be fulfilled 

over a period of eight years (12 years 

where the CIF value is Rs. 100 crore 1) 

from the date the license was issued. 

For failure to meet the export obligation, 

a company is subject to payment of all 

or part of the duty reduction, depending 

on the extent of the export shortfall, 

plus penalty interest. 

The Department has previously 

determined that the import duty 

reductions provided under the EPCGS 

constitute a countervailable export 

subsidy. See e.g., Final Results of 3rd 

PET Film Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Export Promotion 

Capital Goods Scheme’’ section. 

Specifically, the Department has found 

that under the EPCGS program, the GOI 

provides a financial contribution under 

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

Department also found this program to 

be specific under section 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act because it is contingent upon 

export performance. No new 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

2 In this review, as in the past review, the GOI has 

argued that, pursuant to changes in its Foreign 

Trade and Policy Handbook of Procedures, advance 

licenses are issued with actual user conditions and 

are not transferable even after completion of the 

export obligation. The Department analyzed these 

changes in the past review and determined that the 

systemic issues continued to exist. 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been provided with 

respect to this program. Therefore, we 

continue to find that import duty 

reductions provided under the EPCGS 

are countervailable export subsidies. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 16.63 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Final and 

accompanying HRS Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Export 

Promotion for Capital Goods (EPCGS) 

Scheme’’ section. 

3. Advance License Program (ALP) 

Under the ALP exporters may import, 

duty free, specified quantities of 

materials required to manufacture 

products that are subsequently 

exported. The exporting companies, 

however, remain contingently liable for 

the unpaid duties until they have 

fulfilled their export requirement. The 

quantities of imported materials and 

exported finished products are linked 

through standard input/output norms 

(SIONs) established by the GOI. 

The Department has previously found 

this program to be countervailable. See 

e.g., Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review; 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip from India, 71 FR 7534 

(February 13, 2006) (Final Results of 

2nd PET Film Review), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Final Results of 2nd PET 

Film Review Decision Memorandum) at 

‘‘Advance License Program’’ section and 

‘‘Comment 1.’’ See also, Notice of Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances Determination: 

Certain Lined Paper Products from 

India, 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006) 

(Final Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (Final 

Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation Decision Memorandum) at 

‘‘Advance License Program’’ section. In 

the Final Results of 2nd PET Film 

Review, the Department found that the 

ALP provides a financial contribution, 

as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of 

the Act, the GOI does not have in place, 

and does not apply, a system that is 

reasonable and effective, within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4), to 

confirm which inputs and in what 

amounts are consumed in the 

production of the exported products. 

Therefore, the entire amount of the 

import duty deferral or exemption 

earned by the respondent constitutes a 

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act. See Final Results of 2nd PET Film 

Review Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1 and Final Determination of 

Lined Paper Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10. See also, 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from India: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 1578 

(January 9, 2008) (Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review) and Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

India: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

40295 (July 14, 2008) (Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review Decision Memorandum) at 

‘‘Advance License Program (ALP)’’ 

section.2 No new information has been 

submitted on the record in this review 

to warrant a reconsideration of the 

Department’s findings. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, we are assigning a net 

subsidy rate of 0.50 percent ad valorem, 

which corresponds to the highest above 

de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 

the same program in another segment of 

this proceeding. See Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Advance License 

Program (ALP)’’ section. 

4. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 

(DEPS) 

India’s DEPS was enacted on April 1, 

1997, as a successor program to the 

Passbook Scheme (PBS). As with PBS, 

the DEPS enables exporting companies 

to earn import duty exemptions in the 

form of passbook credits rather than 

cash. All exporters are eligible to earn 

DEPS credits on a post-export basis, 

provided that the GOI has established a 

SION for the exported product. DEPS 

credits can be used for any subsequent 

imports, regardless of whether they are 

consumed in the production of an 

export product. DEPS credits are valid 

for 12 months and are transferable after 

the foreign exchange is realized from the 

export sales on which the DEPS credits 

are earned. With respect to subject 

merchandise, the GOI has established a 

SION for the steel industry. 

The Department has previously 

determined that DEPS is a 

countervailable program, which 

provides a financial contribution and is 

specific as an export contingent subsidy 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. See e.g., Final 

Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme’’ 

section. The Department further found 

that the benefit under section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act is the entire amount of import 

duty exempted, because the GOI does 

not have in place, and does not apply, 

a system that is within the meaning of 

19 CFR 351.519(a)(4), reasonable and 

effective for determining what imports 

are consumed in the production of the 

exported product and in what amounts. 

Id. No new information or evidence of 

changed circumstances has been 

presented in this review to warrant 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

finding. 

We have previously determined that 

this program provides a recurring 

benefit under 19 CFR 351.519(c). See 

e.g., Preliminary Determination of Lined 

Paper Investigation, 71 FR at 7920 

(unchanged in Final Determination of 

Lined Paper Investigation). In 

accordance with past practice and 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(b)(2), we 

preliminarily find that benefits from the 

DEPS program are conferred as of the 

date of exportation to the shipment for 

which the DEPS credits are earned. See 

e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

India, 64 FR 73131 (December 29, 1999) 

at Comment 4 (explaining that for 

programs such as the DEPS, ‘‘we 

calculate the benefit on an ‘‘earned’’ 

basis (that is upon export) where it is 

provided as a percentage of the value of 

the exported merchandise on a 

shipment-by-shipment basis and the 

exact amount of the exemption is 

known.’’) 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Duty Entitlement 

Passbook Scheme (DEPS)’’ section. 

5. Status Certificate Program 

India’s Status Certificate Program is 

detailed under paragraph 3.5 of its 

Foreign Trade Policy Handbook. This 

program details the following privileges 

to exporters, depending on their export 

performance for the current year, plus 

the preceding three years: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1501 

(i). Authorizations and Customs 

clearances for both imports and exports 

on self-declaration basis; 

(ii). Fixation of Input-Output norms 

on priority within 60 days; 

(iii). Exemption from compulsory 

negotiation of documents through 

banks. The remittance, however, would 

continue to be received through banking 

channels; 

(iv). 100 percent retention of foreign 

exchange in EEEC account: 

(v). Enhancement in normal 

repatriation period from 180 days to 360 

days; 

(vi). (Deleted); 

(vii). Exemption from furnishing of 

Bank Guarantee in Schemes under this 

Policy. See GOI’s April QR at 60. 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department examined this program in 

which certain respondents participated 

during that POR. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1597. In particular, we inquired about 

the extent to which the respondents 

used the provision related to foreign 

currency retention under the Status 

Certificate Program during the POR. Id. 

However, the Department found that the 

program was not used during the POR. 

See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review, 

and Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Programs 

Determined to Be Not Used’’ section. As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a foreign 

currency loan, and a benefit within the 

meaning of 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of 

the Act, respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and Post Export 

Financing’’. 

6. Loan Guarantees From the GOI 

In the underlying investigation, the 

Department found that the GOI, through 

the State Bank of India (SBI) provides 

loan guarantees on a case-by-case basis 

to particular industrial sectors. See 

Notice of Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determinations: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Products from 

India, 66 FR 20240, 20249 (April 20, 

2001) (Preliminary Determination of 

HRS Investigation), unchanged in Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 

66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) 

(Final Determination of HRS 

Investigation) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. We 

determined these SBI loan guarantees 

confer countervailable subsidies 

because they provide a financial 

contribution in the form of a potential 

direct transfer of funds or liabilities and 

are specific to a limited number of 

companies within the meaning of 

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

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

respectively. Id. In accordance with 

section 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, the loan 

guarantees provide a benefit to the 

recipient in the amount of the difference 

between the amount the recipient pays 

on the guaranteed loan and the amount 

the recipient would pay for a 

comparable commercial loan if there 

were no government guarantee. No new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been presented to 

warrant reconsideration of this finding. 

Therefore, in the instant review, we 

preliminarily continue to find, as AFA, 

that the GOI’s loan guarantees under 

this program provide a financial 

contribution in the form of a potential 

direct transfer of funds or liabilities and 

are specific to a limited number of 

industries within the meaning of 

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

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

respectively. Moreover, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

meaning of 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, in 

the form of the difference in the amount 

the firm paid on the guaranteed loan 

and the amount the firm would pay for 

a comparable loan if there were no 

government guarantee. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning, a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and Post Export 

Financing’’ section. 

7. Steel Development Fund (SDF) Loans 

The Steel Development Fund (SDF) 

was established in 1978, to which 

India’s integrated steel producers, 

including Tata, contributed the 

proceeds from GOI-mandated price 

increases (i.e., levies). In turn, these 

producers were eligible to take out longterm loans from the SDF at 

advantageous rates. See Final 

Determination of HRC Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Loans from 

the Steel Development Fund’’ section. 

In the underlying investigation, the 

Department determined that the GOI 

exercises control over the way in which 

funding is disbursed under this 

program. See Preliminary Determination 

of HRS Investigation (unchanged in 

Final Determination of HRS 

Investigation). 

Therefore, the Department determined 

that loans under the SDF constitute a 

financial contribution within the 

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

Act. We also determined that loans 

under the SDF are specific within the 

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

Act because eligibility for loans from the 

SDF is limited to steel companies. We 

further found that loans under the SDF 

program confer a benefit under section 

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

the interest paid under the program 

during the POR was less than what 

would have been charged on a 

comparable commercial loan. Id. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been submitted in 

this proceeding to warrant 

reconsideration of this determination. 

Therefore, in the instant review, we 

preliminarily continue to find, as AFA, 

that the GOI’s provision of SDF loans 

under this program provide a financial 

contribution in the form of a potential 

direct transfer of funds and are specific 

to a limited number of industries within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

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

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 0.99 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Loan from the Steel 

Development Fund (SDF) Fund’’ section. 

8. Captive Mining of Iron Ore 

Under the Mines and Minerals 

Development and Regulation Act of 

1957, as amended, (MMDR) and the 

Mineral Concession Rules of 1960, as 

amended, the GOI grants captive mining 

rights for minerals, including iron ore, 

to eligible applicants. The MMDR 

includes a schedule that lists minerals 

for which mining rights are controlled 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

by the GOI. Iron ore is included on this 

schedule. 

In Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined that 

the MMDR captive mining program was 

countervailable. See Preliminary Results 

of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1591 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). Specifically, the 

Department determined that the 

program provided a financial 

contribution in the form of the provision 

of a good within the meaning of 

771(D)(iii) of the Act and conferred a 

benefit within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act by enabling the 

participating firms to purchase iron ore 

from the GOI for less than adequate 

remuneration (LTAR). We further 

determined that the program is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

is limited to certain enterprises, such as 

steel producers. Id. In the instant 

review, we preliminarily continue to 

find that the GOI’s provision of iron ore 

for LTAR under this program provide a 

financial contribution in the form of a 

provision of a good and is specific to a 

limited number of industries within the 

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

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

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Captive Mining of 

Iron Ore’’ section. 

9. Captive Mining Rights of Coal 

In 1973, the GOI nationalized coal 

mining under the Coal Mines 

Nationalization Act. The legislation 

initially reserved coal mining for public 

companies. However, pursuant to the 

Coal Mines Nationalization Amendment 

Act of 1976, the law was revised to 

allow iron and steel companies to mine 

for coal for captive use (i.e., the right of 

selected companies to extract coal from 

government-owned land for use in their 

production processes). In 1993 through 

1996, the GOI amended the Act to also 

allow power companies and the cement 

industry to mine coal for captive use. 

In Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined that 

this program was countervailable. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1592 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). 

Specifically, the Department determined 

that the provision of coal constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of a 

provision of a good within the meaning 

of 771(D)(iii) of the Act. We also 

determined that the program conferred 

a benefit within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act by enabling the 

participating firms to purchase coal 

from the GOI for LTAR. We further 

determined that the program is specific 

under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the 

Act, because preference is given in the 

allocation of coal mining rights or 

‘‘blocks’’ to steel producers whose 

annual production capacity exceeds one 

million tons. Id. In the instant review, 

we preliminarily continue to find that 

the GOI’s provision of coal under this 

program provide a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good and is specific to a limited 

number of industries within the 

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

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

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining Rights of Coal’’ section. 

10. Export Oriented Units (EOU) 

Program: Duty-Free Import of Capital 

Goods and Raw Materials 

Under this program EOUs are entitled 

to import capital goods and raw 

materials duty-free. In the Preliminary 

Determination of PET Resin, we 

determined that this program was 

countervailable. We found that the 

assistance provided under this program 

was specific as an export subsidy within 

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

Act. See Notice of Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment With 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination: 

Bottle-Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) Resin From India 

(Preliminary Determination of PET 

Resin), 69 FR 52866, 52870 (August 30, 

2004) (unchanged in the Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Bottle-Grade 

Polyethylene Terephthalate (‘‘PET’’) 

Resin From India, 70 FR 13460 (March 

21, 2005) (Final Determination of PET 

Resin), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (PET Resin 

Investigation Decision Memorandum).) 

We found that this program provides a 

financial contribution in the form of 

forgone revenue within the meaning of 

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

confers a benefit in the amount of 

exemptions and reimbursements of 

customs duties and certain sales taxes 

on capital equipment in accordance 

with section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 

section 351.519(4)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. See PET Resin Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘ExportOriented Unit (EOU) Program: DutyFree Import of Capital Goods and Raw 

Materials’’ section. In the instant review, 

we preliminarily continue to find the 

GOI’s provision of assistance under this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific as an export 

subsidy within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Duty Entitlement 

Passbook Scheme (DEPS)’’ section. 

11. EOU Program: Reimbursement of 

Central Sales Tax (CST) Paid on 

Materials Procured Domestically 

In the Preliminary Determination of 

PET Resin, we found that under this 

program, EOUs are entitled to 

reimbursements of the CST paid on 

materials procured domestically, 

applicable to purchases of both raw 

materials and capital goods. See 

Preliminary Determination of PET 

Resin, 69 FR at 52870 (unchanged in 

Final Determination of PET Resin). 

In the Preliminary Determination of 

PET Resin, the Department determined 

that this program was countervailable. 

Specifically, we found that the program 

is specific as an export subsidy within 

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

Act. This program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

foregone within the section 771(5)(D)(ii) 

of the Act and confers a benefit in the 

amount of reimbursements of CST in 

accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act. Id. In the instant review, we 

preliminarily continue to find the GOI’s 

provision of assistance under this 

program provides a financial 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1503 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific as an export 

subsidy within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat Tax Incentives’’ 

section. 

12. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 

Under Section (80 HHC) 

Under section 80HHC of the Income 

Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters to 

deduct profits derived from the export 

of merchandise from taxable income. In 

prior CVD proceedings, the Department 

has found this program to be an export 

subsidy within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(B) of the Act, and thus 

countervailable,. See e.g., Certain IronMetal Castings from India: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000), 

and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Income Tax 

Deductions Under Section 80 HHC’’ 

section. This program provides a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue foregone and confers a benefit 

in the form of tax savings to the 

company within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. No new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been submitted in this proceeding to 

warrant reconsideration of this finding. 

Therefore, in the instant review, we 

preliminarily continue to find the tax 

savings to the company under this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific as an export 

subsidy within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

any segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat Tax Incentives’’ 

section. 

13. Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

The Department has previously 

determined that the GOI provides highgrade iron ore to steel producers for 

LTAR through the government-owned 

National Mineral Development 

Corporation (NMDC). See Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from India, 71 FR 28665 

(May 17, 2006), and accompanying 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of HighGrade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ section. The NMDC is 

governed by the Ministry of Steel and 

the GOI holds the vast majority of its 

shares. In past reviews, we have found 

the NMDC to be a government authority. 

See e.g., Final Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, and accompanying Final 

Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of High-Grade 

Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration section.’’ 

In the Final Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department found that, 

through NMDC, the GOI provides a 

direct financial contribution in the form 

of a provision of a good as defined 

under section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act, 

which is specific within the meaning of 

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

because the actual recipients are limited 

to industries that use iron ore, including 

the steel industry. See Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review and accompanying 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of HighGrade Iron ore for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ section. The Department 

also found pursuant to section 

771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act that a benefit is 

conferred, because the government 

provides the good or service for LTAR. 

See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of HighGrade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ section. 

In its questionnaire responses, the 

GOI provided a list of companies that 

purchased high-grade iron ore from 

NMDC during the POR and Tata does 

not appear on this list. See GOI’s April 

QR at 43 and August 10, 2009 QR. 

However, without Tata’s cooperation, 

we find that this list does not constitute 

complete and verifiable evidence, 

within the meaning of sections 782(c)(3) 

and (2) of the Act, respectively, that 

Tata or any of its affiliates did not 

purchase iron ore from NMDC during 

the POR. The Department has in the 

past stated that it cannot rely solely 

upon the government’s statements to 

make a determination of non-use. See 

Laminated Woven Sacks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Final Affirmative 

Determination, in Part, of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 

2008) (LWS from China), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4 (LWS from 

China Investigation Decision 

Memorandum). Therefore, we 

preliminarily find that Tata benefitted 

from this program within the meaning 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 16.14 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fifth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Sale of HighGrade Iron Ore for LTAR’’ section. 

14. Market Development Assistance 

(MDA) 

In Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings 

From India, the Department found that 

the Federation of Indian Export 

Organization administers grants under 

the MDA program, subject to approval 

by the Ministry of Commerce. See 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Iron-Metal Castings From India, 55 FR 

46699, 46702 (November 6, 1990) 

(Preliminary Results of Sixth Castings 

Review) (unchanged in Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings 

From India, 56 FR1956 (January 18, 

1991)). The purpose of the programs is 

to provide grants-in-aid to approved 

organizations (i.e., export houses) to 

promote the development of markets for 

Indian goods abroad. Such development 

projects may include market research, 

export publicity, and participation in 

trade fairs and exhibitions. Id. 

The Department found that the MDA 

grants were countervailable. See 

Preliminary Results of Sixth Castings 

Review (unchanged in Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings 

From India). The program provides a 

direct financial contribution and confers 

a benefit within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

and is specific as an export subsidy 

within the meaning of section 

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

In its April QR, the GOI stated that 

Tata had not ‘‘availed any benefits under 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

this program,’’ and in its September 4, 

2009, questionnaire response 

(September QR) submitted a certificate 

from the administering authority 

attesting to the same. See April QR at 59 

and September 4 QR at 11. However, 

absent the cooperation of Tata, we do 

not find that these submissions 

constitute complete and verifiable 

evidence, within the meaning of 

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

respectively, demonstrating that Tata or 

any of its affiliates did not benefit from 

this program. The Department has in the 

past stated that it cannot rely solely 

upon the government’s statements to 

make a determination of non-use. See 

LWS from China and accompanying 

LWS from China Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. Therefore, 

as AFA, we preliminarily find that Tata 

benefitted from this program within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘The GOI’s Forgiveness 

of SDF Loans Issued to SAIL’’ section. 

15. Market Access Initiative (MAI) 

According to section 3.2 of the GOI’s 

Foreign Trade Policy 2004–2009: 

‘‘The Market Access Initiative (MAI) 

scheme is intended to provide financial 

assistance for medium term export 

promotion efforts with a sharp focus on 

a country/product, and is administered 

by the Department of Commerce (DoC). 

Financial assistance is available for 

Export Promotion Councils, Industry 

and Trade Associations, Agencies of 

State Governments, Indian Commercial 

Missions abroad and other eligible 

entities as may be notified. A whole 

range of activities can be funded under 

the MAI scheme. These include, 

amongst others, (i) market studies, 

* * * (iii) sales promotion campaigns, 

* * * (v) publicity campaigns * * *’’ 

See GOI’s April QR at Annex 7 page 28. 

In past proceedings, the Department 

has investigated this program to the 

extent that it provides financial 

assistance from the GOI to approved 

organizations which promote exports by 

offsetting the expense of foreign market 

analysis and promotional publications. 

See Preliminary Determination of Lined 

Paper Investigation, 71 FR at 7922 

(unchanged in Final Determination of 

Lined Paper Investigation, and Final 

Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation Decision Memorandum at 

the ‘‘Programs Determined to be Not 

Used’’ section). 

The GOI stated in its April QR that 

the respondent company had not 

‘‘availed any benefits under this 

program,’’ and in its September 4 QR 

submitted a certificate from the 

administering authority attesting to the 

same. See April QR at 67 and September 

4 QR at 12. However, absent the 

cooperation of Tata, we do not find that 

these submissions constitute complete 

and verifiable evidence, within the 

meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of 

the Act, respectively, demonstrating that 

Tata or any of its affiliates did not 

benefit from this program during the 

POR. The Department has in the past 

stated that it cannot rely solely upon the 

government’s statements to make a 

determination of non-use. See LWS from 

China. Therefore, we preliminarily find 

that Tata benefitted from this program 

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

of the Act. Furthermore, as AFA, we 

find that Tata’s use of the MAI program 

provides a financial contribution in the 

form of a grant and confers a benefit as 

a grant within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. The Department also finds, 

as AFA, that the program is specific as 

an export subsidy within the meaning of 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘The GOI’s Forgiveness 

of SDF Loans Issued to SAIL’’. 

16. Special Economic Zone Act of 2005 

(SEZ Act): Duty Free Import/Domestic 

Procurement of Goods and Services for 

Development, Operation, and 

Maintenance of SEZ Units Program 

In the Fifth HRS Review, we found 

that, under this program, companies 

with SEZ units may import from 

overseas or procure domestically dutyfree goods and services. See Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

India: Notice of Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

79791, 79797 (December 30, 2008) (Fifth 

HRS Preliminary Results) (unchanged in 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from India: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

20923 (May 6, 2009) (Fifth HRS Final 

Results) and Final Results of Fifth HRS 

Review Decision Memorandum at ‘‘SEZ 

Act.’’) The Department found, based on 

AFA, the company’s use of the programs 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution that is specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. Id. No new information or 

evidence of changed circumstances has 

been submitted in this proceeding to 

warrant reconsideration of this finding. 

The GOI stated in its April QR that 

Tata was not covered by this program. 

See April QR at 68. However, absent 

cooperation by Tata, we do not find that 

this statement constitutes complete and 

verifiable evidence, within the meaning 

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

demonstrating that Tata or any of its 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program. The Department has in the 

past stated that it cannot rely solely 

upon the government’s statements to 

make a determination of non-use. See 

LWS from China. Therefore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, that Tata used 

and benefitted from this program within 

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

Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as 

AFA, the company’s use of this program 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and is specific as an 

export subsidy within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act, respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.66 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a the same program 

in another segment of this proceeding. 

See Final Results of Fifth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘SEZ Act’’ 

section. 

17. SEZ Act: Exemption From Excise 

Duties on Goods Machinery and Capital 

Goods Brought From the Domestic Tariff 

Area for Use by an Enterprise in the SEZ 

In the Fifth HRS Review, we found 

that, under this program, companies 

with SEZ units may be eligible for 

exemption from excise duties on goods 

machinery and capital goods brought 

from the Domestic Tariff Area for use by 

an enterprise in the SEZ. See Fifth HRS 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79797 

(unchanged in Fifth HRS Final Results). 

The Department found, based on AFA, 

the company’s use of the programs 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution that is specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. Id. 

The GOI stated in its April QR that 

Tata was not covered by this program. 

See April QR at 68. However, absent 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1505 

cooperation by Tata, we do not find that 

this statement constitutes complete and 

verifiable evidence, within the meaning 

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

demonstrating that Tata or any of its 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POR. The 

Department has in the past stated that 

it cannot rely solely upon the 

government’s statements to make a 

determination of non-use. See LWS from 

China. Therefore, we preliminarily find, 

as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, that Tata used and benefitted 

from this program within the meaning 

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

Moreover, we preliminarily find, as 

AFA, the company’s use of this program 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and is specific as an 

export subsidy within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act, respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 2.57 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for this program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fifth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘SEZ Act’’ 

section. 

18. SEZ Act: Drawback on Goods 

Brought or Services Provided From the 

Domestic Tariff Area Into a SEZ, or 

Services Provided in a SEZ by Service 

Providers Located Outside India 

In the Fifth HRS Review, we found 

that under this program companies that 

are suppliers are eligible to claim 

drawback or Duty Entitlement Pass 

Book (DEPB) on goods or services 

provided from the Domestic Tariff area 

or from outside India into a SEZ. 

However, we found the program was not 

used. See Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 

73 FR at 79801 (unchanged in Fifth HRS 

Final Results). 

The GOI stated in its April QR that 

Tata was not covered by this program. 

See April QR at 68. However, absent 

cooperation by Tata, we do not find that 

this statement constitutes complete and 

verifiable evidence, within the meaning 

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

demonstrating that Tata or any of its 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POR. The 

Department has in the past stated that 

it cannot rely solely upon the 

government’s statements to make a 

determination of non-use. See LWS from 

China. Therefore, we preliminarily find, 

as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, that Tata used and benefitted 

from this program within the meaning 

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

Furthermore, as AFA, we preliminarily 

find that Tata’s use of the programs 

under the SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

duty exemption that is specific within 

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

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRC Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Duty Entitlement 

Passbook Scheme (DEPS)’’ section. 

19. SEZ Act: 100 Percent Exemption 

From Income Taxes on Export Income 

From the First 5 Years of Operation, 50 

Percent for the Next 5 Years, and a 

Further 50 Percent Exemption on Export 

Income Reinvested in India for an 

Additional 5 Years 

In the Fifth HRS Review, we found 

that under this program benefits are 

provided on sales made from the SEZ. 

However, the program was not used. See 

Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 

79801 (unchanged in Fifth HRS Final 

Results). 

The GOI stated in its April QR that 

the Tata was not covered by this 

program. See April QR at 68. However, 

absent cooperation by Tata, we do not 

find that this statement constitutes 

complete and verifiable evidence, 

within the meaning of sections 782(e)(3) 

and (2) of the Act, demonstrating that 

Tata or any of its affiliates did not 

benefit from this program during the 

POR. The Department has in the past 

stated that it cannot rely solely upon the 

government’s statements to make a 

determination of non-use. See LWS from 

China. Therefore, we preliminarily find, 

as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, that Tata used and benefitted 

from this program within the meaning 

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

Furthermore, as AFA, we preliminarily 

find that Tata’s use of the programs 

under the SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone that is specific within 

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

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives section.’’ 

20. SEZ Act: Exemption From the 

Central Sales Tax (CST) 

In the Fifth HRS Review, we found 

that under this program companies may 

be eligible for exemption from the 2 

percent CST on inter-state purchases 

made by the SEZ unit. See Fifth HRS 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79798 

(unchanged in Fifth HRS Final Results). 

The Department found, based on AFA, 

the company’s use of the programs 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution that is specific 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. Id. 

The GOI stated in its April QR that 

Tata was not covered by this program. 

See April QR at 68. However, absent 

cooperation by Tata, we do not find that 

this statement constitutes complete and 

verifiable evidence, within the meaning 

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

demonstrating that Tata or any of its 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POR. The 

Department has in the past stated that 

it cannot rely solely upon the 

government’s statements to make a 

determination of non-use. See LWS from 

China. Therefore, we preliminarily find, 

as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, that Tata used and benefitted 

from this program within the meaning 

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

Moreover, we preliminarily find, as 

AFA, the company’s use of this program 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and is specific as an 

export subsidy within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act, respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

any segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

21. SEZ Act: Exemption From National 

Service Tax 

In the Fifth HRS Review, we found 

that under this program SEZ units are 

exempt from paying the national service 

tax of 12.36 percent. Therefore, a service 

provider to an SEZ unit is not required 

to pay the 12.36 percent service tax on 

invoices issued to SEZ units. See Fifth 

HRS Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 

79798 (unchanged in Fifth HRS Final 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

Results). The Department found, based 

on AFA, the company’s use of the 

programs under the 2005 SEZ Act 

constitutes a financial contribution that 

is specific within the meaning of 

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

Act, respectively. Id. 

The GOI stated in its April QR that 

Tata was not covered by this program. 

See April QR at 68. However, absent 

cooperation by Tata, we do not find that 

this statement constitutes complete and 

verifiable evidence, within the meaning 

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

demonstrating that Tata or any of its 

affiliates did not benefit from this 

program during the POR. The 

Department has in the past stated that 

it cannot rely solely upon the 

government’s statements to make a 

determination of non-use. See LWS from 

China. Therefore, we preliminarily find, 

as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, that Tata used and benefitted 

from this program within the meaning 

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

Moreover, we preliminarily find, as 

AFA, the company’s use of this program 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and is specific as an 

export subsidy within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act, respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, this program, we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

any segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

22. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate 

(DFRC) Scheme 

The DFRC scheme was introduced by 

the GOI in 2001 and was administered 

by the Directorate General for Foreign 

Trade. The DFRC was a duty 

replenishment scheme that was 

available to exporters for the subsequent 

import of inputs used in the 

manufacture of goods without payment 

of basic customs duty. In order to 

receive a license, which entitled the 

recipient subsequently to import duty 

free certain inputs used in the 

production of the exported product, as 

identified in a SION, within the 

following 24 months, a company had to: 

(1) Export manufactured products listed 

in the GOI’s export policy book and 

against which there is a SION for inputs 

required in the manufacture of the 

export product based on quantity; and 

(2) have realized the payment of export 

proceeds in the form of convertible 

foreign currency. The application was to 

be filed within six months of the 

realization of the profits. DFRC licenses 

were transferrable, yet the transferee 

was limited to importing only those 

products and in the quantities specified 

on the license. 

In the past, the Department has found 

that in order to receive a DFRC license, 

firms must demonstrate that they made 

an export sale by submitting proof of 

payment to the GOI in the form of a 

bank realization certificate. As such, we 

found that duty exemptions provided 

under the DFRC program were earned 

on a shipment-by-shipment basis and, 

therefore, were tied to particular 

products and markets within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(4) and 

(5). Moreover, we determined that the 

sale of DFRC licenses and the sales 

proceeds conferred a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also determined that because the receipt 

of DFRC licenses are contingent upon 

exports, the DFRC program was specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation, unchanged in Final 

Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation, and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Duty 

Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) 

Scheme.’’ 

The GOI claimed that the DFRC 

program was terminated as of May 1, 

2006, in accordance with paragraph 

4.2.8 of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for 

the year 2006–07. Moreover, the GOI 

claimed that no benefits accrued under 

this program during the POR. See GOI’s 

April QR at 18 and Exhibit 7. With 

respect to residual benefits from this 

program, in the September 4, 2009 

questionnaire response (September 4 

QR) the GOI, citing to paragraph 4.2.8 of 

the FTP for the period September 1, 

2004–March 31, 2009, stated that any 

export made after April 30, 2006, is not 

eligible for benefits under the DFRC. See 

GOI’s September 4, 2009 QR at 4. 

However, because we have previously 

determined that DFRC licenses can be 

used 24 months after they were issued, 

firms that had qualifying exports on 

April 30, 2006, would have been eligible 

to use benefits under this program 

through at least April 30, 2008, which 

is covered by the POR. See Preliminary 

Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation, unchanged in Final 

Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation, and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Duty 

Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) 

Scheme.’’ Without Tata’s cooperation, 

we preliminarily find that the 

documentation provided by the GOI 

does not constitute complete and 

verifiable evidence, within the meaning 

of sections 782(c)(3)(2) of the Act, 

respectively, that Tata or any of its 

affiliates did not use DFRC licenses to 

import duty free inputs under this 

program during the period covered by 

this administrative review. Therefore, 

we preliminarily continue to find that 

the duty exemptions provided under the 

DFRC licenses provided countervailable 

subsidies during the POR. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis rate 

calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Duty Entitlement 

Passbook Scheme (DEPS)’’ section. 

23. Target Plus Scheme (TPS) 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department found that import duty 

exemptions under the TPS were 

countervailable. Specifically, the 

Department determined that a financial 

contribution, in the form of revenue 

forgone, as defined under section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, was provided 

under program because the GOI 

provides credits for the future payment 

of import duties. In addition, we found 

that the TPS program provides a benefit 

because the GOI did not have in place 

and did not apply a system that was 

reasonable and effective for the 

purposes intended to confirm which 

inputs, and in what amounts, were 

consumed in the production of the 

exported products. Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4) 

and section 771(5)(E) of the Act, we 

determined that the entire amount of 

import duty exemption earned during 

the POR constitutes a benefit. Moreover, 

we determined that the program was 

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

Act because the program could only be 

used by exporters. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1590, found not used in the Final 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, and 

accompanying Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Target Plus Scheme’’ section and 

Comment 30. 

The GOI claimed that the TPS was 

terminated as of April 1, 2006, and 

reported that no benefits accrued under 

this program during the POR. See GOI’s 

April QR at 59. In the GOI’s September 

4 QR, the GOI provided Notification No. 

57 dated March 31, 2009, from the 

Directorate General for Foreign Trade 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1507 

and, citing to this document, claimed 

that this document shows that the 

Target Plus Scheme has been abolished 

effective April 1, 2006. The GOI further 

claimed that this notice clearly states 

that the TPS has been abolished for 

exports from April 1, 2006, forward and 

that any export made after this date is 

not entitled to the benefits under this 

program. See GOI’s September 4, 2009 

QR at 5. However, we have insufficient 

information concerning the time period 

for which benefits may carry forward 

under this program. Furthermore, 

without Tata’s cooperation, we 

preliminarily find that the 

documentation provided by the GOI 

does not constitute complete and 

verifiable evidence, within the meaning 

of sections 782(c)(3)(2) of the Act, 

respectively, that Tata or any of its 

affiliates did not use TPS credits to pay 

customs duty on imports of any inputs 

under this program during the POR. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis rate 

calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Duty Entitlement 

Passbook Scheme (DEPS)’’ section. 

B. Programs Administered by the State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) 

1. State Government of Gujarat Tax 

Incentives: Sales Tax Exemptions of 

Purchases of Goods During the POR 

Pursuant to a 1995 Industrial Policy of 

Gujarat and an Incentive Policy of 1995– 

2000 (1995 IP), the SGOG offered 

incentives, such as sales tax exemptions 

and deferrals, to companies that locate 

or invest in certain disadvantaged or 

rural areas in the State of Gujarat. A 

company could be eligible to claim 

exemptions or deferrals valued up to 90 

percent of the total eligible capital 

investment. These policies exempt 

companies from paying sales tax on the 

purchases of raw materials, consumable 

stores, packing materials, and 

processing materials. Other available 

benefits include exemption from or 

deferment of sales tax and turnover tax 

on the sale of intermediate products, byproducts, and scrap. The Pioneer and 

Prestigious programs are the two 

programs that are available under this 

policy. To be eligible for the incentives, 

companies must have made a fixed 

capital investment of over five crores 

(Pioneer Scheme) or 300 crores 

(Prestigious Scheme) in a qualified 

under-developed area in the State of 

Gujarat. See Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

India, 71 FR 1512, 1514 (January 10, 

2006) (Preliminary Results of Second 

HRC Review); see also the Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from India, 71 FR 28665 

(May 17, 2006) and Final Results of 

Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘State Government of 

Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ section. 

The amount of the eligible capital 

investment is linked to the amount of 

the incentives received over a period of 

8 to 14 years, depending on the category 

of participation. For the Pioneer 

Scheme, which initially began in 1986, 

companies making a capital investment 

during 1986 and 1991 were allowed to 

utilize this program. For the Prestigious 

Scheme, tax incentives were offered 

only for investment units which started 

production between 1990 and 1995. See 

Preliminary Results of Second HRC 

Review, 71 FRat 1514 and Final Results 

of Second HRC Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘State Government of 

Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ section. 

In the Final Determination of PET 

Resin Investigation, the Department 

determined that the sales tax 

exemptions under the Prestigious 

Scheme resulted in companies not 

paying the state sales tax otherwise due, 

and thus constituted a countervailable 

subsidy. See Final Determination of PET 

Resin, and the Final Results of the 

Fourth HRS Review, and Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at the ‘‘State of Gujarat 

(SOG) Sales Tax Incentive Scheme’’ 

section. Consistent with our findings in 

the Final Determination of PET Resin, 

we determined in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review that this program 

was countervailable because it is limited 

to only those companies that make an 

investment in a specified disadvantaged 

area and is therefore specific under 

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

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review. We 

also found in the Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review that the SGOG 

provides a financial contribution under 

section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by 

foregoing the collection of sales tax 

revenue and that a company receives a 

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act in the amount of sales tax that it 

does not pay. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). In the instant review, as 

AFA, we preliminarily continue to find 

the tax savings to the company under 

this program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific because it is 

limited to eligible companies investing 

in specified disadvantaged area within 

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

and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, 

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for this program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

2. State Government of Gujarat Tax 

Incentives: Deferrals on Purchases of 

Goods From Prior Years (as Well as 

Deferrals Granted During the POR 

As noted above, under the 1995 IP, 

the SGOG offered incentives, such as 

sales tax deferrals, to companies that 

locate or invest in certain disadvantaged 

or rural areas in the State of Gujarat. 

As explained above, the Department 

found this program countervailable 

under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act 

because it was regionally specific. The 

Department also found that the SGOG 

provides a financial contribution under 

section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by 

foregoing the collection of sales tax 

revenue and that a company receives a 

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act in the amount of sales tax that it 

does not pay. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). In the instant review, as 

AFA, we preliminarily continue to find 

the tax savings to the company under 

this program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific because it is 

limited to eligible companies investing 

in specified disadvantaged area within 

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

and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, 

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for this program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

3. State Government of Gujarat Tax 

Incentives: Value Added Tax (VAT) 

Program Established on April 1, 2006 

In the Fourth HRS Review, we found 

that the SGOG had established a VAT 

remission system on April 1, 2006 that 

remits VAT to eligible firms using the 

balance of tax incentives under the 

Prestigious Scheme another tax 

incentive program. This system remits 

VAT to eligible firms using the balance 

of tax incentives under the Prestigious 

Scheme that remained unutilized after 

the end of the 8- to 14-year time 

window allowed under the Prestigious 

Scheme. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 

(unchanged in the Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

The VAT remission system operates 

differently with respect to purchases 

and sales. For purchases within the 

State of Gujarat, eligible firms (i.e., firms 

with existing balances under the 

Prestigious Scheme) must pay full tax to 

the vendor. However, the tax paid is 

credited to the company in the form of 

an input tax credit to be refunded by the 

State Government. The SGOG then 

debits the refund received by the firm 

against the firm’s remaining balance of 

tax credits leftover from the Prestigious 

System. Id. 

With respect to sales, a company is 

required to charge sales tax from its 

customers (both local VAT and central 

sales tax). However, the tax collected by 

the seller does not have to be paid to the 

SGOG, but instead can be retained 

through a remission order provided by 

the state’s sales tax authorities. In such 

instances, the amount of sales tax 

retained by the firm is credited against 

the firm’s remaining balance of tax 

credits leftover from the Prestigious 

Scheme. Id. 

In the Preliminary Results of Fourth 

HRS Review, we determined that this 

VAT remission system was linked to the 

Prestigious Scheme, a countervailable 

program. Id. Moreover, because the 

source of the tax remissions received 

under the system comes from 

participating firms’ unused tax credits 

under the Prestigious Scheme, we 

determined that these indirect tax 

remissions constituted a financial 

contribution, in the form of revenue 

forgone, under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of 

the Act and are regionally specific 

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

We further determined that these 

indirect tax remissions conferred a 

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.510(a)(1) because 

they enabled participating firms to pay 

less indirect taxes than they would have 

to pay absent the system. Id. In the 

instant review, as AFA, we 

preliminarily continue to find the tax 

savings to the company under this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific because it is 

limited to eligible companies investing 

in specified disadvantaged area within 

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

and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, 

respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning to the VAT remission 

scheme program, a net subsidy rate of 

3.09 percent ad valorem, which 

corresponds to the highest above de 

minimis subsidy rate calculated for the 

same program in another segment of this 

proceeding. See Final Results of Second 

HRS Review Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) 

Tax Incentives’’ section. 

4. Gujarat Special Economic Zone Act 

(SGOG SEZ Act): Stamp Duty and 

Registration Fees for Land Transfers, 

Loan Agreements, Credit Deeds, and 

Mortgages 

In the Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 

the Department found that under the 

SGOG SEZ act, the respondent firm was 

not required to pay the registration 

charge on leased land from the SEZ 

Developer nor the stamp duty on the 

lease rental. See Fifth HRS Preliminary 

Results (unchanged in Fifth HRS Final 

Results. The Department found, based 

on AFA, the company’s use of the 

programs under the 2005 SEZ Act 

constitutes a financial contribution that 

is specific within the meaning of 

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

Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 

found that the exemption on registration 

charges and stamp duties confer a 

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act. Id. In the instant review, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, that Tata used 

and benefitted from this program within 

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

Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as 

AFA, the company’s use of this program 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and is specific as an 

export subsidy within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act, respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

5. Gujarat Special Economic Zone Act 

(SGOG SEZ Act): Sales Tax, Purchase 

Tax, and Other Taxes Payable on Sales 

and Transactions 

In the Preliminary Results of Fifth 

HRS Review, the Department found that 

under the SGOG SEZ Act, inputs 

purchased by SEZ units from within the 

State of Gujarat are exempted from 

payment of sales tax. See Fifth HRS 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79799 

(unchanged in of Fifth HRS Final 

Results). The Department found, based 

on AFA, the company’s use of the 

programs under the 2005 SEZ Act 

constitutes a financial contribution that 

is specific within the meaning of 

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

Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 

found that sales tax exemptions 

received by the company confer a 

benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 

Act. Id. In the instant review, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, that Tata used 

and benefitted from this program within 

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

Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as 

AFA, the company’s use of this program 

under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and is specific as an 

export subsidy within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of 

the Act, respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

any segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

6. Gujarat Special Economic Zone Act 

(SGOG SEZ Act): Sales and Other State 

Taxes on Purchases of Inputs (Both 

Goods and Services) for the SEZ or a 

Unit Within the SEZ 

In the Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 

the Department found that under the 

SGOG SEZ act, the two percent CST 

charged on goods and services procured 

by SEZ units from states other than 

Gujarat is exempted when those goods 

and services are supplied to SEZ units. 

See Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 73 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1509 

FR at 79799 (unchanged in Fifth HRS 

Final Results). The Department found, 

based on AFA, the company’s use of the 

programs under the 2005 SEZ Act 

constitutes a financial contribution that 

is specific within the meaning of 

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

Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 

found that the company’s receipt of 

sales tax exemptions on inter-state 

purchases confer a benefit under section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. Id. In the instant 

review, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

that Tata used and benefitted from this 

program within the meaning of section 

771(5)(E) of the Act. Moreover, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, the 

company’s use of this program under 

the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific as an export 

subsidy within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 

respectively. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

C. Programs Administered by the State 

Government of Maharashtra (SGOM) 

1. Sales Tax Program 

In the Preliminary Results of Fourth 

HRS Review, the Department found that 

sales tax exemptions, deferrals, and 

sales tax loans, in the form of interestfree loans, were provided under the 

SGOM’s sales tax program. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1595 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). 

The Department found that the benefits 

provided under the program are specific 

under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act 

because they are limited to only those 

companies that make an investment in 

a specified developing area. We further 

found that the program constitutes a 

financial contribution under section 

771(D)(ii) of the Act by foregoing the 

collection of sales taxes and, in the case 

of sales tax deferrals, in the form of 

uncollected interest on the deferred 

sales taxes. We also found that the sales 

tax program confers a benefit under 

section 771(5)(E) of the Act: (1) In the 

amount of sales tax that it does not pay; 

(2) in the case of sales tax deferrals, in 

the amount of interest otherwise due; 

and (3) in the case of sales tax loans, in 

the form of interest-free loans. Id. In the 

instant review, as AFA, we 

preliminarily continue to find the tax 

savings to the company under this 

program provides a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and is specific because it is 

limited to only those companies 

investing in a specified developing area 

within the meaning of sections 

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

Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 0.59 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for the same program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Maharashtra (SGOM) 

Programs Sales Tax Program’’ section. 

2. VAT Tax Refunds Under the SGOM 

Package Scheme of Incentives and the 

Maharashtra New Package Scheme of 

Incentives 

In the Preliminary Results of Fourth 

HRS Review, the Department found that 

under the Maharashtra Package Scheme 

of Incentives and the Maharashtra New 

Package Scheme of Incentives, the 

SGOM offered tax incentives including 

VAT tax refunds to companies that 

located or invested in certain 

developing areas in the State of 

Maharashtra. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1595 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). The Department found 

that the benefits provided under the 

program are specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because they 

are limited to only those companies that 

make an investment in a specified 

developing area. We further found that 

the program constitutes a financial 

contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) 

of the Act by forgoing the collection of 

sales taxes. Id. In the Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, the Department 

found that the amount of refunds 

claimed by the company were not 

excessive during the POR and did not 

constitute a benefit. However, the 

Department stated that it would 

continue to examine this program in 

future reviews. See Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘State Government of 

Maharashtra Program’’ section. In the 

instant review, as AFA, we 

preliminarily continue to find the tax 

savings to the company under this 

program provide a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and are specific because they 

are limited to only those companies 

investing in a specified developing area 

within the meaning of sections 

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

Act, respectively. Furthermore, as 

explained above, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

3. Electricity Duty Exemption Under the 

Package Scheme of Incentives for 1993 

In the Preliminary Results of Fourth 

HRS Review, the Department 

determined that electricity duty 

exemptions received under the Package 

Scheme of Incentives of 1993 are 

countervailable. Specifically, we 

determined that the exemptions are 

regionally specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because they 

are limited to companies that make 

investments in a specified development 

area. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 

HRS Review, 73 FR at 1596 (unchanged 

in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). 

We further determined that the 

exemptions constitute a financial 

contribution, in the form of revenue 

forgone, and a benefit equal to the 

amount of unpaid duties within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. Id. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been submitted in 

this proceeding to warrant 

reconsideration of this finding. 

Therefore, in the instant review, we 

preliminarily continue to find the 

electricity duty exemptions to the 

company under this program provide a 

financial contribution in the form of 

revenue forgone and are regionally 

specific within the meaning of sections 

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

Act, respectively. Furthermore, as 

explained above, we preliminarily find, 

as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, Tata used and benefitted from 

this program, within the meaning of 

771(5)(E) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

4. Refunds of Octroi Under the PSI of 

1993, Maharashtra Industrial Policy 

(MIP of 2001), and Maharashtra 

Industrial Policy (MIP of 2006) 

In the Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

(PET Film) from India, the Department 

found that the Octroi Refund Scheme is 

a program under the SGOM’s package of 

incentives, in which industrial 

establishments that make capital 

investments in specific regions of 

Maharashtra are entitled to the refund of 

Octroi duty, a tax levied by local 

authorities on goods that enter a town 

or district. See Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

(PET Film) from India, 66 FR 53390, 

53396 (October 22, 2001). In the Notice 

of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

(PET Film) from India, the Department 

found that the Octroi Refund Scheme is 

specific within the meaning of 

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

certain privately-owned industries 

located within designated geographical 

regions. See Notice of Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip (PET Film) from India, 67 FR 

34905 (May 16, 2002) (Final 

Determination PET Film) and PET Film 

Investigation Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Octroi Refund Scheme’’ section. We 

also found that a financial contribution 

was provided under section 771(5)(D)(i) 

of the Act. Id. In the instant review, we 

preliminarily continue to find the 

indirect tax savings to the company 

under this program provide a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone and are regionally specific 

within the meaning of sections 

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

Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 

benefitted from this program, within the 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

5. Loan Guarantees Based on Octroi 

Refunds by SGOM 

In the Final Determination PET Film, 

the Department found that certain longterm loans had been secured on the 

future payment of the Octroi refund due 

to the respondent company. We found 

that the loan guarantee was specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

the company was only to receive the 

loan guarantee because of its eligibility 

for the Octroi Refund Scheme, which is 

limited to certain privately-owned 

industries located within designated 

geographical regions. We also found that 

the SGOM and the administering 

authority the State Industrial and 

Investment Corporation of Maharashtra 

Limited (SICOM) provided a financial 

contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) 

of the Act through the potential direct 

transfer of the Octroi refund to pay the 

company’s loans. See Final 

Determination PET Film, and PET Film 

Investigation Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Octroi Refund Scheme’’ section. No 

new information or evidence of changed 

circumstances has been submitted in 

this proceeding to warrant 

reconsideration of this finding. In the 

instant review, as AFA, we 

preliminarily continue to find, that the 

SGOM’s loan guarantees under this 

program provide a financial 

contribution within the meaning of 

sections 771(5)(D)(i) through a potential 

direct transfer of the Octroi refund to 

pay off loans. We also preliminarily 

find, as AFA, these loan guarantees are 

specific within the meaning of 

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

only companies eligible for the Octroi 

scheme can receive these loan 

guarantees. Moreover, we preliminarily 

find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, Tata used and benefitted 

from this program, within the meaning 

of 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, in the form 

of the difference in the amount the firm 

paid on the guaranteed loan and the 

amount the firm would pay for a 

comparable loan if there were no 

government guarantee. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and PostShipment Export Financing’’ section. 

6. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega 

Projects 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Maharashtra 

Industrial Policy (MIP) of 2006, firms 

investing in what the SGOM deems are 

Mega Projects are eligible to receive 

infrastructure subsidies. The 

Department also investigated whether 

the SGOM has been providing 

infrastructure subsidies in the form of 

tax programs and grants to firms 

investing in Mega Projects in years prior 

to the enactment of the MIP of 2006. 

However, the Department found that the 

program was not used during the POR. 

See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that Tata’s use 

of this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act. We also 

preliminarily find based on AFA that 

the program is limited to firms investing 

in Mega-Projects and, therefore, is 

specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See 

Memorandum regarding New Subsidy 

Allegations for Ispat Industries Limited 

(Ispat) dated September 14, 2007 (Ispat’s 

New Subsidy Allegations Memo) at 

‘‘Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega 

Projects’’ section on file in the Central 

Records Unit. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning net subsidy rates of 3.09 

and 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 

correspond to the highest above de 

minimis subsidy rates calculated for 

similar programs in another segment of 

this proceeding. See Final Results of 

Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘State Government of 

Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ section 

and HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘The GOI’s Forgiveness 

of SDF Loans to SAIL’’ section. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1511 

7. Land for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether the SGOM encourages 

development outside of the Bombay and 

Pune metropolitan areas by offering 

low-cost land. However, the Department 

found that the program was not used 

during the POR. See Preliminary Results 

of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

Tata’s use of this program constitutes a 

financial contribution in the form of 

land sold for LTAR and confers a benefit 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E)(iv). We also 

preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 

the program is limited to enterprises 

purchasing land outside of the Bombay 

and Pune area, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. See Ispat’s 

New Subsidy Allegations Memo at 

‘‘Land for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining Rights of Iron Ore’’ section. 

8. Investment Subsidy 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether the SGOM provided 

investment subsidies to firms in the 

state of Maharashtra. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that Tata’s use 

of this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to firms 

operating outside of the Bombay and 

Pune metropolitan areas and thus, is 

specific within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. See Ispat’s 

New Subsidy Allegations Memo at 

‘‘Investment Subsidy’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

D. Programs Administered by the State 

Government of Andhra Pradesh (SGAP) 

1. Grant Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): 25 Percent 

Reimbursement of Cost of Land in 

Industrial Estates and Industrial 

Development Areas 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the grants under its 

Industrial Policy program to a limited 

number of industries operating mega 

projects and therefore, is specific within 

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

the Act. See Memorandum regarding 

New Subsidy Allegations for Essar Steel 

Limited dated October 4, 2007 (Essar’s 

New Subsidy Allegation Memo) at ‘‘GAP 

Grants, Tax Programs and other 

Subsidies Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2005–2010 

(GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ section on file 

in the CRU. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

2. Grant Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): 

Reimbursement of Power at the Rate of 

Rs. 0.75 per Unit for the Period 

Beginning April 1, 2005, Through 

March 31, 2006 and for the Four Years 

Thereafter To Be Determined by SGAP 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the grants under its 

Industrial Policy program to a limited 

number of industries operating mega 

projects and therefore, is specific within 

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

the Act. See Essar’s New Subsidy 

Allegation Memo at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax 

Programs and other Subsidies Under the 

Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 

2005–2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ 

section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

3. Grant Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): 50 Percent 

Subsidy for Expenses Incurred for 

Quality Certification up to Rs. 100 

Lakhs 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the grants under its 

Industrial Policy program to a limited 

number of industries operating mega 

projects and therefore, is specific within 

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

the Act. See Essar’s New Subsidy 

Allegation Memo at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax 

Programs and other Subsidies Under the 

Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 

2005–2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ 

section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

4. Grant Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): A 25 Percent 

Subsidy on Cleaner Production 

Measures up to Rs. 5 Lakhs 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the grants under its 

Industrial Policy program to a limited 

number of industries operating mega 

projects and therefore, is specific within 

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

the Act. See Essar’s New Subsidy 

Allegation Memo at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax 

Programs and other Subsidies Under the 

Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 

2005–2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ 

section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

5. Grant Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): A 50 Percent 

Subsidy on Expenses Incurred in Patent 

Registration, up to Rs. 5 Lakhs 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the grants under its 

Industrial Policy program to a limited 

number of industries operating mega 

projects and therefore, is specific within 

the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. 

See Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation 

Memo at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax Programs 

and other Subsidies Under the 

Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 

2005–2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ 

section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

6. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): 100 Percent 

Reimbursement of Stamp Duty and 

Transfer Duty Paid for the Purchase of 

Land and Buildings and the Obtaining 

of Financial Deeds and Mortgages 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the indirect tax 

benefits under its Industrial Policy 

program to a limited number of 

industries operating mega projects and 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

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

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax Programs and other 

Subsidies Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2005–2010 

(GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1513 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for this program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

7. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): A Grant of 25 

Percent of the Tax Paid to SGAP, Which 

is Applied as a Credit Against the Tax 

Owed the Following Year, for a Period 

of Five Years From the Date of 

Commencement of Production 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the indirect tax 

benefits under its Industrial Policy 

program to a limited number of 

industries operating mega projects and 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

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

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax Programs and other 

Subsidies Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2005–2010 

(GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

8. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy of 2005– 

2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): Exemption 

From the SGAP Non-Agricultural Land 

Assessment (NALA) 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the indirect tax 

benefits under its Industrial Policy 

program to a limited number of 

industries operating mega projects and 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

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

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax Programs and other 

Subsidies Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2005–2010 

(GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for this program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

9. Provision of Goods/Services for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration Under 

the Industrial Investment Promotion 

Policy of 2005–2010 (Andhra Pradesh 

IP): Provision of Infrastructure for 

Industries Located More Than 10 

Kilometers From Existing Industrial 

Estates or Industrial Development Areas 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the provision of 

infrastructure under this program to a 

limited number of industries operating 

mega projects, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See Essar’s 

New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ‘‘GAP 

Grants, Tax Programs and other 

Subsidies Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2005–2010 

(GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for this program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

10. Provision of Goods/Services for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration Under 

the Industrial Investment Promotion 

Policy of 2005–2010 (Andhra Pradesh 

IP): Guaranteed Stable Prices of 

Municipal Water for 3 Years for 

Industrial Use and Reservation of 10% 

of Water for Industrial Use for Existing 

and Future Projects 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Andhra Pradesh 

IP, companies from eligible industries 

which construct new facilities or 

substantially expand existing facilities 

and begin commercial production on or 

after April 1, 2005, may receive certain 

subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGAP limits the provision of 

municipal water at guaranteed stable 

prices under its Industrial Policy 

program to a limited number of 

industries operating mega projects and 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

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

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘GAP Grants, Tax Programs and other 

Subsidies Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2005–2010 

(GOAP Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

E. Programs Administered by the State 

Government of Chhattisgarh (SGOC) 

1. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 

2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 

Policy): A Direct Subsidy of 35 Percent 

of Total Capital Cost for the Project, up 

to a Maximum Amount Equivalent to 

the Amount of Commercial Tax/Central 

Sales Tax Paid in a Seven Year Period 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the Chhattisgarh 

Industrial Policy (CIP), companies from 

eligible industries which construct new 

facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

2. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 

2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 

Policy): A Direct Subsidy of 40 Percent 

Toward Total Interest Paid for a Period 

of 5 Years (up to Rs. Lakh per Year) on 

Loans and Working Capital for Upgrades 

in Technology 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

3. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 

2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 

Policy): Reimbursement of 50 Percent of 

Expenses (up to Rs. 75,000) Incurred for 

Quality Certification 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1515 

4. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 

2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 

Policy): Reimbursement of 50 Percent of 

Expenses (up to Rs. 5 Lakh) for 

Obtaining Patents 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

5. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial 

Policy 2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh 

Industrial Policy): Total Exemption 

From Electricity Duties for a Period of 

15 Years From the Date of 

Commencement of Commercial 

Production 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

6. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial 

Policy 2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh 

Industrial Policy): Exemption From 

Stamp Duty on Deeds Executed for 

Purchase or Lease of Land and 

Buildings and Deeds Relating to Loans 

and Advances To Be Taken by the 

Company for a Period of Three Years 

From the Date of Registration 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

7. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial 

Policy 2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh 

Industrial Policy): Exemption From 

Payment of Entry Tax for 7 Years 

(Excluding Minerals Obtained From 

Mining in the State) 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

8. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial 

Policy 2004–2009 (Chhattisgarh 

Industrial Policy): A 50 Percent 

Reduction of the Service Charges for 

Acquisition of Private Land by 

Chhattisgarh Industrial Development 

Corporation for Use by the Company 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

9. Land for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (LTAR) Under the 

Industrial Policy 2004–2009 

(Chhattisgarh Industrial Policy) 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the CIP, companies 

from eligible industries which construct 

new facilities or substantially expand 

existing facilities in most backward 

scheduled tribe dominated areas and 

begin commercial production between 

November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, 

may receive certain subsidies from the 

SGOC. However, the Department found 

that the program was not used during 

the POR. See Preliminary Results of 

Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 

(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 

HRS Review). As explained above, as 

AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 

used and benefitted from this program 

during the POR. Furthermore, based on 

AFA, we preliminarily determine that 

this program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the SGOC limits eligibility under its 

Industrial Policy program to certain 

industries located in certain areas of 

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See 

Essar’s New Subsidy Allegation Memo 

at ‘‘State Government of Chhattusgarh 

(GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 

Investment Promotion Policy 2004–2009 

(GOC Industrial Policy)’’ section. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for this program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

F. Programs Administered by the State 

Government of Jharkhand (SGOJ) 

1. Tax Incentives Under the Jharkhand 

State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 

Exemption of Electricity Duty 

Under clause 15.2.2 of the Jharkhand 

State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001, 

the SGOJ encourages the private sector 

in setting up of Captive Power 

Generation Plants. This program allows 

large industrial unit, consortium of 

industrial enterprises in growth centers, 

or industrial areas to set up power 

generating units as well as take over 

distribution of power in such industrial 

complexes. This captive power 

generation and purchase is exempted 

from electricity duty for a period of ten 

years from the date of commercial 

production. See GOI’s April QR, Annex 

30 at 15. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

2. Tax Incentives Under the Jharkhand 

State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 

Offset of Jharkhand Sales Tax (JST) 

Under clause 28 of the JSIP of 2001, 

new industrial units, as well as existing 

units which are not using any facility of 

tax-deferment, tax-free purchases or taxfree sales under any earlier notification, 

are allowed to opt for an offset of 

Jharkhand Sales Tax (JST) paid on the 

purchases of raw materials, within the 

State of Jharkhand only against transfer 

or consignment sale outside the state, of 

finished products made out from such 

raw materials subject to a limitation of 

six months or the same financial year 

from the date of purchase of such raw 

materials. See April QR at 87 and Annex 

30 at 27. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1517 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

3. Grants Under the Jharkhand State 

Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: Capital 

Investment Incentive 

Under clause 29.3 of the JSIP of 2001, 

a capital investment incentive may be 

provided only to small and medium 

scale industries. According to Annexure 

1, Entry No. 19 and 11 of the JSIP states 

that small and medium industries 

would be defined by the GOI. Pursuant 

to the terms of S.O. 1642(E) dated 

September 29, 2006, issued by the GOI, 

a small industry is one where the 

investment in plant and machinery is 

more than Rs. 2.5 million but does not 

exceed Rs. 50 million; a medium 

industry is one where the investment in 

plant and machinery is more than Rs. 50 

million but does not exceed Rs. 100 

million. See GOI’s April QR at 87–88 

and Annex 30 at 28. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

4. Grants Under the Jharkhand State 

Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: Capital 

Power Generating Subsidy 

Under clause 29.4 of the JSIP of 2001, 

a capital power generating subsidy may 

be provided to new industries. 

According to Annexure 1, Entry No. 4 

of the JSIP, a new industrial unit is a 

unit that has come into commercial 

production after November 15, 2000. 

See GOI’s April QR at 88 and Annex 30 

at 28. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

5. Grants Under the Jharkhand State 

Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: Interest 

Subsidy 

Under clause 29.5 of the JSIP of 2001, 

an interest subsidy may be provided to 

new industries. According to Annexure 

1, Entry No. 4 of the JSIP, a new 

industrial unit is a unit that has come 

into commercial production after 

November 15, 2000. See GOI’s April QR 

at 88 and Annex 30 at 28. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

6. Tax Incentives Under the Jharkhand 

State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 

Stamp Duty and Registration 

Under clause 29.6 of the JSIP program 

of 2001, exemption from payment of 50 

percent of stamp duty and registration 

fees upon registration of documents 

within the State of Jharkhand relating to 

the purchase or acquisition of land and 

buildings are provided for setting up a 

new unit. See GOI’s April QR at 88 and 

Annex 30 at 29. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

7. Grants Under the Jharkhand State 

Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 

Feasibility Study and Project Report 

Cost Reimbursement 

Under clause 29.8 of the JSIP of 2001, 

50 percent of the feasibility study and 

project report cost incurred by 

industrial units will be reimbursed 

subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000 

provided the report is prepared by a 

recognized consultant drawn from duly 

approved panel by the Industries 

Department. This reimbursement will be 

admissible after the commencement of 

commercial production. See GOI’s April 

QR at 88 and Annex 30 at 29. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

8. Grants Under the Jharkhand State 

Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 

Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy 

Under clause 29.9 of the JSIP of 2001, 

new and existing industrial units are 

entitled to a subsidy of 20 percent of the 

cost of pollution control and monitoring 

equipment subject to a maximum of Rs. 

2 million upon installation of pollution 

control and monitoring equipment 

allowed on the certificate of the State 

Pollution Control Board about the 

necessity for such installation. See 

GOI’s April QR at 88 and Annex 30 at 

29. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

9. Grants Under the Jharkhand State 

Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 

Incentive for Quality Certification 

Under clause 29.10 of the JSIP of 

2001, small scale/ancillary industries 

would be encouraged to seek ISI/ISO 

certification. In accordance with 29.10, 

the state government shall facilitate for 

reimbursement of charges for acquiring 

ISO–900 (or its equivalent) certification 

to the extent of 75 percent of the cost 

subject to a maximum of Rs. 75,000 

million from the central government. 

See GOI’s April QR at 88–89 and Annex 

30 at 30. 

As explained above, as AFA pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

that the program is limited to certain 

industries and, therefore, is specific 

within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

10. Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega 

Projects: Tax Incentives 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the JSIP of 2001, the 

firms investing in what the SGOJ deems 

are Mega Projects are eligible to receive 

infrastructure subsidies. The 

Department further investigated 

whether the SGOJ has a policy to 

provide qualifying companies 

additional subsidies when making 

capital investment totaling more than 

Rs. 50 crore as a Mega Project. See 

September 27, 2007 Tata New Subsidies 

Memorandum at ‘‘Subsidies for Mega 

Projects under the JSIP of 2001’’ section. 

However, the Department found that the 

program was not used during the POR. 

See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue for 

gone, and a benefit within the meaning 

of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of 

the Act, respectively. We also 

preliminarily find, based on AFA, the 

SGOJ limits eligibility under this 

program to firms involved in ‘‘Mega 

Projects’’ on a case-by-case basis and 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

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

Memorandum regarding New Subsidy 

Allegations at ‘‘Subsidies for Mega 

Projects under the JSIP of 2001’’ section 

dated September 27, 2007 (Tata’s New 

Subsidy Allegations Memo) on file in 

the CRU. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

11. Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega 

Projects: Grants 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the JSIP of 2001, the 

firms investing in what the SGOJ deems 

are Mega Projects are eligible to receive 

infrastructure subsidies. The 

Department further investigated 

whether the SGOJ has a policy to 

provide qualifying companies 

additional subsidies when making 

capital investment totaling more than 

Rs. 50 crore as a Mega Project. See 

Tata’s New Subsidies Memorandum at 

‘‘Subsidies for Mega Projects under the 

JSIP of 2001’’ section. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

the SGOJ limits eligibility under this 

program to firms involved in ‘‘Mega 

Projects’’ on a case-by-case basis and 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1519 

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

Tata’s New Subsidy Allegations Memo 

at ‘‘Subsidies for Mega Projects under 

the JSIP of 2001’’ section dated 

September 27, 2007. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ 

12. Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega 

Projects: Loans 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department initiated an investigation 

into whether under the JSIP of 2001, the 

firms investing in what the SGOJ deems 

are Mega Projects are eligible to receive 

infrastructure subsidies. The 

Department further investigated 

whether the SGOJ has a policy to 

provide qualifying companies 

additional subsidies when making 

capital investment totaling more than 

Rs. 50 crore as a Mega Project. See 

Tata’s New Subsidies Memorandum at 

‘‘Subsidies for Mega Projects under the 

JSIP of 2001’’ section. However, the 

Department found that the program was 

not used during the POR. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As 

explained above, as AFA pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily find, based on AFA, 

the SGOJ limits eligibility under this 

program to firms involved in ‘‘Mega 

Projects’’ on a case-by-case basis and 

therefore, is specific within the meaning 

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

Tata’s New Subsidy Allegations Memo 

at ‘‘Subsidies for Mega Projects under 

the JSIP of 2001’’ section dated 

September 27, 2007. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and PostShipment Export Financing’’. 

13. Employment Incentives Under the 

Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) 

of 2001 

Under clause 29.7 of the JSIP of 2001, 

the employment generation based 

incentives provided are available to a 

limited number of industries. See GOI’s 

April QR at 88 and Annex 30 at 29. 

Specifically, the SGOJ pays, for each 

worker in qualifying industries, 50 

percent of the premium paid by the 

employer under the Contributory Group 

Insurance Scheme (CGIS). As explained 

above, as AFA pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find 

that Tata used and benefitted from this 

program during the POR. Furthermore, 

based on AFA, we preliminarily 

determine that this program constitutes 

a financial contribution in the form of 

a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. We also preliminarily find, 

based on AFA, the SGOJ limits 

eligibility under this program to firms in 

certain industries and therefore, is 

specific within the meaning of section 

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

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ 

G. Programs Administered by the State 

Government of Karnataka (SGOK) 

1. SGOK’s New Industrial Policy and 

Package of Incentives and Concessions 

of 1993 (1993 KIP): Tax Incentives 

In the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department determined, based on AFA, 

and in accordance with section 776(b) of 

the Act that all newly alleged subsidy 

programs, including the assistance 

provided under the New Industrial 

Policy and Package of Incentives and 

Concessions for the period 1993–1998 

(1993 KIP), were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘Adverse Facts Available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

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

and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. 

We also preliminarily determine, as 

AFA, that this program is specific 

pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

2. 1993 KIP: Land at Less Than 

Adequate Remuneration 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRC Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of provision of 

a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

3. 1993 KIP: Iron Ore, Limestone, and 

Dolomite at Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘Adverse Facts Available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

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

and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. 

We also preliminarily determine, as 

AFA, that this program is specific 

pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

4. 1993 KIP: Power/Electricity at Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

5. 1993 KIP: Water at Less Than 

Adequate Remuneration 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

6. 1993 KIP: Roads and Other 

Infrastructure at Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

7. 1993 KIP: Port Facilities at Less Than 

Adequate Remuneration 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1521 

8. 1993 KIP: Grants 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRC Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we find that 

Tata used and benefitted from this 

program during the POR. Furthermore, 

based on AFA, we determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, as 

AFA we are assigning a net subsidy rate 

of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 

corresponds to the highest above de 

minimis subsidy rate calculated for a 

similar program in another segment of 

this proceeding. See HRS Investigation 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness 

of SDF Loans to SAIL’’. 

9. 1993 KIP: Loans 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and PostShipment Export Financing’’ section. 

10. 1993 KIP: Tax Incentives 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section.11. SGOK’s New 

Industrial Policy and Package of 

Incentives and Concessions of 1996 

(1996 KIP): Tax Incentives. As noted 

above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax Incentives’’ 

section, in the Fourth HRS Review, the 

Department determined, based on AFA, 

and in accordance with section 776(b) of 

the Act that all newly alleged subsidy 

programs, including the SGOK’s New 

Industrial Policy and Package of 

Incentives and Concessions of 1996 

(1996 KIP), were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program as 

AFA we are assigning a net subsidy rate 

of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 

corresponds to the highest above de 

minimis subsidy rate calculated for a 

similar program in another segment of 

this proceeding. See Final Results of 

Second HRS Review Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘State Government of 

Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives’’ section. 

12. 1996 KIP: Loans 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1996 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

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

and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. 

We also preliminarily determine, as 

AFA, that this program is specific 

pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and PostShipment Export Financing.’’ 

13. 1996 KIP: Grants 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1996 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’ section. 

14. 1996 KIP: Provision of Goods and 

Services at Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (LTAR) 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

1996 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). In the instant 

review, as discussed above in the 

‘‘adverse facts available’’ section, based 

on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, we preliminarily find that 

Tata used and benefitted from this 

program during the POR. Furthermore, 

based on AFA, we preliminarily 

determine that this program constitutes 

a financial contribution in the form of 

a provision of a good or service, and a 

benefit within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. We also preliminarily 

determine, as AFA, that this program is 

specific pursuant to section 771(5A) of 

the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

any segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

15. SGOK’s New Industrial Policy and 

Package of Incentives and Concessions 

of 2001 (2001 KIP): Tax Incentives 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

SGOK’s New Industrial Policy and 

Package of Incentives and Concessions 

of 2001 (2001 KIP), were used and 

constitute a financial contribution and 

are specific pursuant to sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

16. 2001 KIP: Loans 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

2001 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

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

and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. 

We also preliminarily determine, as 

AFA, that this program is specific 

pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and PostShipment Export Financing’’. 

17. 2001 KIP: Grants 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

2001 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program we are 

assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 1523 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL’’. 

18. 2001 KIP: Provision of Goods and 

Services at Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (LTAR) 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

2001 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good or service, and a benefit 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. We also preliminarily 

determine, as AFA, that this program is 

specific pursuant to section 771(5A) of 

the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

19. SGOK’s New Industrial Policy and 

Package of Incentives and Concession of 

2006 (2006 KIP): Loans 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

SGOK’s New Industrial Policy and 

Package of Incentives and Concessions 

of 2006 (2006 KIP), were used and 

constitute a financial contribution and 

are specific pursuant to sections 

771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act. See 

Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 

Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Pre- and PostShipment Export Financing’’ section. 

20. 2006 KIP: Tax Incentives 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

2006 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone, and a benefit within the 

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

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Second HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘State 

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 

Incentives’’ section. 

21. 2006 KIP: Provision of Goods and 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (LTAR) 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP: Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

2006 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a provision 

of a good or service, and a benefit 

within the meaning of sections 

771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 

respectively. We also preliminarily 

determine, as AFA, that this program is 

specific pursuant to section 771(5A) of 

the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Captive 

Mining of Iron Ore’’ section. 

22. 2006 KIP: Grants 

As noted above in the ‘‘1993 KIP’’ Tax 

Incentives’’ section, in the Fourth HRS 

Review, the Department determined, 

based on AFA, and in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 

alleged subsidy programs, including the 

2006 KIP, were used and constitute a 

financial contribution and are specific 

pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 

771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary 

Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 

1593 (unchanged in Final Results of 

Fourth HRS Review). 

In the instant review, as discussed 

above in the ‘‘adverse facts available’’ 

section, based on AFA, and pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, we 

preliminarily find that Tata used and 

benefitted from this program during the 

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 

preliminarily determine that this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
1524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices 

program constitutes a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds, and a benefit within 

the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 

771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We 

also preliminarily determine, as AFA, 

that this program is specific pursuant to 

section 771(5A) of the Act. 

Pursuant to the AFA methodology 

described above, for this program, we 

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 

percent ad valorem, which corresponds 

to the highest above de minimis subsidy 

rate calculated for a similar program in 

another segment of this proceeding. See 

HRS Investigation Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Forgiveness of SDF 

Loans to SAIL.’’ 

Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Terminated 

1. Exemption of Export Credit From 

Interest Taxes 

Indian commercial banks were 

required to pay a tax on all interest 

accrued from borrowers. The banks 

passed along this interest tax to 

borrowers in its entirety. As of April 1, 

1993, the GOI exempted from the 

interest tax all interest accruing to a 

commercial bank on export-related 

loans. The Department has previously 

found this tax exemption to be an export 

subsidy, and thus countervailable, 

because only interest accruing on loans 

and advanced made to exporters in this 

form of export curedti was exempt from 

interest tax. See e.g., Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings 

From India, 61 FR 64676, 64686 

(December 6, 1996). 

In the instant review, the GOI 

reported in its April QR that pursuant 

to the Finance Act of 2000, the GOI has 

abolished the Interest Tax. See April QR 

at 68. The GOI provided a copy of 

circular DBOD.No.BP.BC.187/21/02/ 

007/2000 dated June 29, 2000, which 

gives notice to commercial banks that 

the interest tax has been discontinued 

regarding chargeable interest accruing 

after March 31, 2000. See April QR at 

Annex 25. In the Carbazole Violet 

Pigment Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, the Department found that 

this program has been terminated in 

accordance with section 351.526(d). See 

Notice of Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination: Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 22763, 

22768 (April 27, 2004) and Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 67321 

(November 17, 2004) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Program Determined To Be 

Terminated’’ (Carbazole Violet Pigment 

Countervailing Duty Investigation). 

Because we have already found that this 

program has been terminated effective 

March 31, 2000, there were no benefits 

during the POR. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

individual subsidy rate for the reviewed 

company for the period January 1, 2008, 

through December 31, 2008. We 

preliminarily determine the net subsidy 

rate for Tata to be 586.43 percent ad 

valorem. 

If the final results remain the same as 

these preliminary results, the 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date 

of publication of the final results of this 

review. We will instruct CBP to collect 

cash deposits for the respondent at the 

countervailing duty rate indicated above 

of the f.o.b. invoice price on all 

shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. We will also instruct CBP to 

continue to collect cash deposits for 

non-reviewed companies at the most 

recent company-specific or countrywide rate applicable to the company. 

These 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(b)(1), interested 

parties may submit written arguments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless otherwise indicated by the 

Department, case briefs must be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice, and 

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, must be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Parties who submit 

written arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the written 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue, 

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, 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. 

Representative 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 

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: December 31, 2009. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–129 Filed 1–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2