Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Notices 25207

revoked this countervailing duty order,

effective January 1, 1995, pursuant to

section 753(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Orders, 60 FR 40,568 (August 9, 1995).

Accordingly, the Department will not

issue further instructions with respect to

cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties.

Public Comment

Interested parties may request a

hearing not later than 10 days after the

date of publication of this written

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted seven

days after the time limit for filing the

case brief. Parties who submit argument

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held seven days

after the scheduled date for submission

of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR § 355.38(e).

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR § 355.38(c), are due. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

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

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12516 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–351–818; C–201–810; C–412–815]

Notice of Court Decision: Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Brazil, Mexico, and the United

Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Court Decision.

SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996, the United

States Court of International Trade (CIT)

affirmed the remand determinations

made by the Department of Commerce

(the Department) that the privatizations

of Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais

(USIMINAS), Altos Hornos de Mexico

(AHMSA), and British Steel plc (BS

plc), respectively, were sales of shares,

and that the privatized entities

continued to be, for all intents and

purposes, the same entities that had

received the subsidies prior to

privatization. British Steel Plc. et al. v.

United States, Slip Op. 96–6011 (British

Steel II). In so doing, the Court

implicitly rejected the Department’s

‘‘repayment’’ methodology set forth in

the privatization portion of its General

Issues Appendix, which is appended to

the Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination: Certain Steel

Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217,

37259 (July 9, 1993).

EFFECTIVE DATE:May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

A. Malmrose, Office of Countervailing

Investigations, or Brian Albright, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5414 and (202)

482–2786 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

from Brazil, 58 FR 37295 (July 9, 1993),

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

From Mexico 58 FR 37352 (July 9, 1993),

and Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination; Certain Steel

Products From the United Kingdom, 58

FR 37393 (July 9, 1993), the Department

determined that subsidies provided to

certain steel producers remained

countervailable after those firms were

privatized. The rationale for the

Department’s determinations was that

the countervailing duty law does not

require, as a prerequisite for

countervailability, that a subsidy

bestowed on a producer confer a

demonstrable ‘‘competitive benefit’’ on

that producer. However, the Department

also determined that a portion of the

sales prices for USIMINAS, AHMSA,

and BS plc, respectively, represented

partial repayment of prior subsidies.

The Department’s privatization

methodology was fully set forth in the

General Issues Appendix.

On February 9, 1995, the CIT held

that the Department’s privatization

methodology was unlawful, and

remanded the determinations in

question. British Steel plc et al. v.

United States, 879 F. Supp. 1254. In

accordance with the CIT’s instructions,

the Department reexamined the

privatization transactions in question.

The Department found that USIMINAS,

AHMSA, and BS plc were privatized

through sales of shares, and that the

privatized entities continued to be, for

all intents and purposes, the same

entities that had received the subsidies

prior to privatization. On this basis, and

in accordance with the CIT’s

instructions, the Department

determined that the pre-privatization

subsidies remained countervailable in

full. The Department did not attribute

any portion of the sales price for any of

the producers to a partial repayment of

prior subsidies.

On April 2, 1996, the CIT affirmed the

Department’s remand determination.

British Steel II. In so doing, the Court

implicitly rejected the ‘‘repayment’’

aspect of the Department’s privatization

methodology, as set forth in the General

Issues Appendix.

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990), the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit held

that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. section

1516a(e), the Department must publish

a notice of a court decision which is not

‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department

determination, and must suspend

liquidation of entries pending a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s

decision in British Steel II on April 2,

1996, constitutes a decision not in

harmony with the Departments final

affirmative determinations. Publication

of this notice fulfills the Timken

requirement.

Accordingly, the Department will

continue to suspend liquidation

pending the expiration of the period of

appeal, or, if appealed, until a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12518 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Export Trade Certificate of Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Process to

Revoke Export Trade Certificate of

Review No. 94–00006.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce

issued an export trade certificate of

review to P & B International. Because

this certificate holder has failed to file