[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10990-10999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-357-815]


Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products From Argentina

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary affirmative countervailing duty 
determination.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric B. Greynolds at (202) 482-6071 or 
Darla Brown at (202) 482-2849, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group 
II, Import

[[Page 10991]]

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.
    Preliminary Determination: The Department of Commerce (the 
Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are 
being provided to certain producers and exporters of certain hot-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from Argentina. For information on the 
estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

    The petition in this investigation was filed by Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel 
Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel 
Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, Weirton 
Steel Corporation, Independent Steelworkers Union, and the Independent 
Steelworkers of America (the petitioners).

Case History

    Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal 
Register (see Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Argentina, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Thailand, 65 FR 77580 
(December 12, 2000) (Initiation Notice), the following events have 
occurred: On December 8, 2000, and December 20, 2000, we issued 
countervailing duty questionnaires to the Government of Argentina 
(GOA).\1\ On January 16 and 17, 2001, Siderar Sociedad Anomina 
Industrial & Commercial (Siderar), a company identified by petitioners 
as a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, and the GOA informed 
us that they were not going to respond to our questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Upon the issuance of the questionnaires, we informed the GOA 
that it was the government's responsibility to forward the 
questionnaires to all producers/exporters that shipped subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation 
(POI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain hot-rolled 
flat-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 non-metallic 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, of 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 this 
investigation.
    Specifically included within the scope of this investigation 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 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 to be included in the scope of this investigation, 
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 2 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 this investigation unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are 
outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
    <bullet> Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
    <bullet> Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
    <bullet> Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
    <bullet> ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
    <bullet> USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
    <bullet> All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
    <bullet> 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 this investigation is classified 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, 7208.40.60.60, 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 flat-rolled 
carbon-quality steel covered by this investigation, 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 U.S. Customs purposes, the 
Department's written description of the merchandise under investigation 
is dispositive.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to

[[Page 10992]]

the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations 
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Injury Test

    Because Argentina is a ``Subsidy Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade 
Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the 
subject merchandise from Argentina materially injure or threaten 
material injury to a U.S. industry. On January 4, 2001, the ITC 
published its preliminary determination finding that there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being 
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports from Argentina of subject merchandise. See Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, 
Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 
FR 805 (January 4, 2001).

Alignment With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

    On January 31, 2001, the petitioners submitted a letter requesting 
alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the 
final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are 
aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final 
determination in the antidumping duty investigation of hot-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from Argentina.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring 
subsidies is calendar year 1999.

Use of Facts Available

    Siderar and the GOA failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act 
require the use of facts available when an interested party withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department, or when an 
interested party fails to provide the information requested in a timely 
manner and in the form required. As described in more detail below, 
Siderar and the GOA have failed to provide information explicitly 
requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts 
otherwise available.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that in selecting 
from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference 
that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that a 
party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In this 
investigation, the Department requested Siderar and the GOA to submit 
the information requested in the initial questionnaire. On January 16 
and 17 of 2001, Siderar and the GOA informed the Department that they 
would not participate in the investigation.
    The Department finds that by not providing necessary information 
specifically requested by the Department and failing to participate in 
any respect in this investigation, Siderar and the GOA have failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, in selecting facts 
available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is 
warranted.
    When employing an adverse inference, the statute indicates that the 
Department may rely upon information derived from (1) the petition; (2) 
a final determination in a countervailing duty or an antidumping 
investigation; (3) any previous administrative review, new shipper 
review, expedited antidumping review, section 753 review, or section 
762 review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. See 19 
CFR 351.308(c) (2000). As adverse facts available in this preliminary 
determination, we have relied upon information in the petition, as well 
as public information from a number of sources, including other 
countervailing duty proceedings involving steel products from 
Argentina. The Department's selection of the information used as 
adverse facts available is discussed in more detail in the program-
specific sections below.
    Finally, the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
URAA clarifies that information from the petition is ``secondary 
information.'' See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying 
H.R. 5110 (H.R. Doc. No. 103-316) (1994) (SAA), at 870. If the 
Department relies on secondary information as facts available, section 
776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, ``to the extent 
practicable,'' corroborate such information using independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. The SAA further provides that to 
corroborate secondary information means simply that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See also, 19 CFR 351.308(c) (2000).
    Therefore, to satisfy itself that such information has probative 
value, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the 
reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike 
other types of information, such as publically available data on the 
national inflation rate of a given country, there typically are no 
independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting 
from countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such 
information is administrative determinations. Thus, if the Department 
chooses as facts available information based on the Department's prior 
determinations concerning particular subsidy programs, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the benefit data for that time 
period.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. 
See, cf., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest dumping margin as best information 
available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin). As discussed in more detail below, we do not have any 
information on the record that would change our determination to rely 
on previously submitted benefit information from the GOA's supplemental 
questionnaire responses in another proceeding or other information that 
was included in the November 13, 2000 petition when analyzing the 
programs at issue in this investigation.
    For those programs in which petitioners did not provide direct 
information from the GOA or Siderar, we used publicly available sources 
on the record in another proceeding which we placed on the record of 
this investigation as necessary. Specifically, for information on 
equity infusions and government assistance provided during the 
privatization of the producer of the subject merchandise, we obtained 
from the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of the main Commerce 
building, the public version of Attachment 70 of the GOA's November 26, 
1993 questionnaire response that was originally placed on the record of 
the 1991 and 1992 administrative reviews of the CVD order on Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from

[[Page 10993]]

Argentina (C-357-005). This information is included in the February 7, 
2001, memorandum to the file, ``Calculations for the Preliminary 
Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina,'' a public document 
on file in room B099 of the CRU. Portions of the GOA's November 26, 
1993 supplemental questionnaire response, as well as its February 24, 
1994 supplemental questionnaire response from the same proceeding, were 
also submitted with petitioners' November 13, 2000 petition at Exhibits 
III-1 and III-2. As discussed more fully in the program-specific 
sections below, because this information was provided by the GOA with 
respect to the identical programs alleged in this investigation and the 
same company, and there is nothing on the record to indicate that the 
use of such information is not appropriate, we determine that this 
information is both reliable and relevant for use as facts available in 
this investigation.
    On November 29, 2000, we held consultations with the GOA regarding 
the countervailing duty petition on certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
flat products from Argentina. During the consultations, the GOA 
indicated that Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros Sociedad Anomina 
(Acindar) did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POI and, thus, should not be subject to the investigation. For more 
information, see the November 29, 2000, memorandum to the file, 
``Consultations with the Government of Argentina Regarding the 
Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Argentina,'' a public document on file in room B099 of 
the CRU. We preliminarily determine that Acindar did not ship subject 
merchandise during the POI and, thus, we have not calculated a facts 
available rate for Acindar nor for the Tax Abatement Program that was 
included in our Initiation Notice.\2\ If Acindar subsequently ships 
subject merchandise to the United States, the ``All Others'' rate noted 
in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice will apply 
to its imports for cash deposit purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that the Tax Abatement Program dealt with regionally 
specific subsidies allegedly provided to one of Acindar's 
subsidiaries. Because this allegation is specific to Acindar, we are 
not including it among the programs preliminarily determined to 
confer subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change in Ownership

    In 1989, the GOA embarked upon a reform program designed to 
restructure the economy, reduce public sector debt, and stabilize the 
currency. A central element of this program was the privatization of 
large public enterprises. That same year the GOA codified the 
privatization procedures under Chapter II of Law 23696. Sociedad Mixta 
Siderurgica Argentina (SOMISA), whose privatization took place in 1992, 
was among those companies covered by the law.
    During the course of privatization, the GOA restructured SOMISA. In 
this restructuring, portions of SOMISA's productive assets were 
transferred to a newly formed company, Aceros Parana S.A. (APSA), while 
the liabilities and nonproductive assets remained with SOMISA. In 1992, 
the GOA privatized APSA by selling it in a share transaction to the 
Technit Group via its subsidiary Propulsura Siderurgica S.A.I.C. 
(Propulsura). Then, in 1993, APSA was merged with four smaller 
companies, none of which produced subject merchandise, to form Siderar.
    As discussed in further detail below, petitioners contend that 
SOMISA/APSA received numerous subsidies prior to the restructuring and 
privatization in 1992. Moreover, they contend that the company 
remained, for all intents and purposes, the same corporate entity 
throughout the restructuring and privatization. As a result, 
petitioners argue that all non-recurring subsidies received by SOMISA 
and APSA are fully attributable to Siderar.
    In this preliminary determination, we have applied our new 
privatization approach, first announced in a remand determination on 
December 4, 2000, following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Delverde Srl v. United States, 202 
F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000), reh'g en banc denied (June 20, 2000) 
(Delverde III). We have also applied this new approach recently in 
Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 2885 (January 12, 
2001).
    Under this approach, the first requirement is to determine whether 
the person to which the subsidies were given is, in fact, distinct from 
the person that produced the subject merchandise exported to the United 
States. If the two persons are distinct, the original subsidies may not 
be attributed to the new producer/exporter. The Department would, 
however, consider whether any subsidy had been bestowed upon that 
producer/exporter as a result of the change-in-ownership transaction.
    On the other hand, if the original subsidy recipient and the 
current producer/exporter are considered to be the same person, that 
person benefits from the original subsidies, and its exports are 
subject to countervailing duties to offset those subsidies. In other 
words, we will determine that a ``financial contribution'' and a 
``benefit'' has been received by the ``person'' that is the firm under 
investigation. Assuming that the original subsidy had not been fully 
amortized under the Department's normal allocation methodology as of 
the POI, the Department would then continue to countervail the 
remaining benefits of that subsidy.
    In making the ``person'' determination, where appropriate and 
applicable, we analyze factors such as (1) continuity of general 
business operations, including whether the successor holds itself out 
as the continuation of the previous enterprise, as may be indicated, 
for example, by use of the same name, (2) continuity of production 
facilities, (3) continuity of assets and liabilities, and (4) retention 
of personnel. No single factor will necessarily provide a dispositive 
indication of any change in the entity under analysis. Instead, the 
Department will generally consider the post-sale entity to be the same 
person as the pre-sale entity if, based on the totality of the factors 
considered, we determine that the entity sold in the change-in-
ownership transaction can be considered a continuous business entity 
because it was operated in substantially the same manner before and 
after the change in ownership.
    Using the approach described above, we analyzed the facts available 
in the petition to determine whether the subsidies received by SOMISA 
and APSA continued to benefit Siderar during the POI. As noted in the 
``Use of Facts Available'' section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar 
have declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, in 
determining that all of SOMISA's and APSA's non-recurring subsidies are 
attributable to Siderar, we relied on adverse inferences with respect 
to the use of facts available, as mandated by section 776(b) of the 
Act.
    Information in the petition indicates that SOMISA, APSA, and 
Siderar are, for all intents and purposes, the same corporate entity. 
For example, the petition contains evidence that APSA, the predecessor 
of Siderar, was sold to Propulsura via a share transaction, suggesting, 
without other available information, that all assets and

[[Page 10994]]

liabilities of APSA were transferred. In addition, page 38 of an 
article in the Colombia Journal of World Business, which was included 
as Exhibit IV-4 of the November 13, 2000 petition, states that, as of 
1993, SOMISA produced hot-rolled steel at its manufacturing facility in 
San Nicolas. Furthermore, Siderar's website indicates that the company 
continues to produce hot-rolled steel at the San Nicolas facility.\3\ 
This information demonstrates that SOMISA, APSA, and Siderar all 
produced hot-rolled steel at the same manufacturing facility, which is 
indicative of the continuity of the enterprise. In addition, the fact 
that the same facility produced hot-rolled steel throughout and after 
the restructuring and privatization periods indicates a continuity of 
the plant's assets. See e.g., P. Marcus and K. Kirsis, ``Siderar: 
Argentina's Privatization Success Story,'' World Steel Dynamics, a 
Paine Webber report that was included as Exhibit IV-11 of the November 
13, 2000 petition.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the February 7, 2001, memorandum to the file that placed 
the information from Siderar's website onto the record of this 
investigation.
    \4\ We note that the information in the report was based on a 
trip to Siderar that Paine Webber representtives took on June 6, 
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that all subsidies 
received by SOMISA and APSA are attributable to Siderar. With our 
``person'' determination, all of the elements of a subsidy are 
established with regard to Siderar.
    We also note that information in the petition indicates that the 
substantial majority of the countervailable non-recurring subsidies 
were provided to the producer of the subject merchandise during the 
course of its sale to private interests and were specifically provided 
for in the bidding and sales documents and contract, as well as in the 
GOA's law and decrees governing the privatization of the company. 
Because of our determination that SOMISA, APSA, and Siderar are, for 
all intents and purposes, the same person, we need not decide whether 
some of the subsidies at issue have been provided directly to the post-
sale entity.

Allocation Period

    19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) (2000) states that we will presume the 
allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful 
life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as 
listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset 
Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of Treasury. 
The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that 
these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable 
physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and 
the party can establish that the difference between the company-
specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is 
significant.
    In this investigation, the Department is considering non-recurring 
subsidies. Regarding non-recurring subsidies, we have allocated, where 
applicable, all of Siderar's non-recurring subsidies over the AUL 
listed in the IRS tables for the steel industry and used in the most 
recently completed administrative review for Argentine steel companies 
(see Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 52974 
(October 10, 1997) (Final Results of 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products)). 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2) (2000), the 
Department is using, for the purposes of the preliminary determination, 
an allocation period of 15 years.

Equityworthiness

    The Department has previously determined SOMISA to be 
unequityworthy for the years 1986 through 1987 and 1988 through 1990 
(see Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from 
Argentina: Final Countervailing Duty Review, 56 FR 28527, 28528 (June 
21, 1991) (Cold-Rolled Flat Products); Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-
Rolled Products from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 38257 (July 17, 1997) and Final 
Results of 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products (collectively referred to as 
1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products). No new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances has been submitted in this review that would lead 
us to reconsider these findings.

Calculation of Discount Rate and Creditworthiness

    For years 1986 through 1990, we used U.S. dollar-denominated 
discount rates (see Private Creditors Interest Rate in U.S. dollars for 
Argentina as reported in the 1993-1994 World Debt Tables). These rates 
were the same as those used in the most recently completed 
administrative review for Argentina. See 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat 
Products, 62 FR 38257, 38260.
    In the petition, petitioners alleged that SOMISA, the corporate 
predecessor of Siderar, was uncreditworthy in 1991 and 1992. To support 
this allegation, petitioners stated that the company had negative 
operating margins and negative return on sales in each of these two 
years. Petitioners have stated that financial data for the years prior 
to 1990 is not publically available. In our initiation, we stated that 
we did not plan to investigate SOMISA's alleged creditworthiness in 
1991 and 1992 on the grounds that the presence of ``non-current bank 
and financial debt'' on its 1991-1992 Financial Statement indicated 
that the company was able to obtain commercial financing. See page 14 
of the December 4, 2000, Initiation Checklist that accompanied the 
Initiation Notice, the public version of which is on file in room B099 
of the CRU.
    However, on January 29, 2001, petitioners submitted additional 
information supporting their claim that SOMISA was uncreditworthy in 
1992. Specifically, petitioners contend that in making its decision not 
to initiate a creditworthy investigation, the Department mistakenly 
relied on 19 CFR 351.505(a)(4)(ii) (2000), which states that the 
presence of long-term commercial financing with a government guarantee 
generally constitutes dispositive evidence that a firm is creditworthy. 
Petitioners point out that in the preamble to the CVD Regulations, the 
Department states that:

    We do not believe that the presence of commercial loans is 
dispositive of whether a government-owned firm could have obtained 
long-term financing from conventional commercial sources. This is 
because in our view, in the case of a government-owned firm, a bank 
is likely to consider that the government will repay the loan in the 
event of default. Accordingly, paragraph (a)(4)(ii) provides that 
the presence of comparable commercial loans will be dispositive of 
creditworthiness only for privately owned companies.

CVD Regulations, 63 FR 65348, 65367.

    In addition, further review of the information in the petition 
indicates that Siderar was in financial distress as of 1992. According 
to a 1993 article from the Colombia Journal of World Business that was 
included as Exhibit IV-4 of the November 13, 2000 petition, by the 
start of the 1990s the company was losing approximately 20 million 
dollars a month. Moreover, the article states that at the time of its 
privatization, ``SOMISA was not a viable economic entity on its own and 
was in a state of technical insolvency.'' The article goes on to state 
that at the time of its sale, SOMISA was having difficulty securing 
letters of credit and that its suppliers had begun to ship materials on 
a cash receipt basis, both of which strongly suggest that the

[[Page 10995]]

company was unable to fulfill its obligations to its creditors.
    Based on the information provided by petitioners, we find there is 
sufficient evidence on the record of this investigation to warrant 
investigating whether SOMISA was uncreditworthy in 1992. Because the 
producer of the subject merchandise and the GOA have declined to 
participate in this investigation, we are relying on adverse facts 
available and, therefore, have preliminarily determined that the 
company was uncreditworthy in 1992.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted above, petitiioners also alleged that SOMISA was 
uncreditworthy in 1991. However, we preliminarily determine that no 
non-recurring subsidies were given in 1991, and, therefore, it is 
not necessary to make a determination regarding Siderar's 
creditworthiness in 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As our 1992 discount rate, we used the peso-denominated lending 
rate as reported by the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) 
International Statistics, as published in June 1993. Because we have 
preliminarily determined the producer of the subject merchandise to be 
uncreditworthy in 1992, we adjusted this discount rate upwards using 
the uncreditworthy discount rate methodology as described in 19 CFR 
351.505(a)(3)(iii) (2000).

Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies

1. Equity Infusions Bestowed From 1986 Through 1990

    Petitioners allege that predecessors of Siderar received equity 
infusions from the GOA during the years 1986 through 1990, a period in 
which petitioners contend Siderar's predecessor was unequityworthy. 
Specifically, petitioners requested that the Department examine the 
equity infusions provided to SOMISA, a predecessor of Siderar, from 
1986 to 1987 and additional infusions provided to SOMISA from 1988 
through 1990.
    In Cold-Rolled Flat Products, we determined that under Decree 2887/
78 the GOA provided SOMISA with countervailable equity infusions from 
1986 through 1987, a period during which the Department found SOMISA to 
be unequityworthy. See 56 FR 28527, 28528. We also determined in 1991 
Cold-Rolled Flat Products that under the same decree the GOA provided 
SOMISA with additional countervailable equity infusions from 1988 
through 1990, a period in which the Department again found SOMISA to be 
unequityworthy. See 62 FR 38257, 38259.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.507(c) (2000), we treated the equity 
infusions as non-recurring subsidies. For each of the infusions 
received during the years 1986 through 1990, we allocated the subsidy 
over the time period corresponding to the AUL beginning in the year in 
which the equity infusions were received using our standard grant 
allocation methodology. We note that the amounts of the individual 
equity infusions were obtained from Attachment 70 of the public version 
of the November 26, 1993 supplemental questionnaire response of the 
GOA.
    In addition, consistent with our treatment of the equity infusions 
in past proceedings, we have converted the equity infusions into U.S. 
dollars in order to take into account the periods of high inflation in 
Argentina and the changes in the Argentine currency that occurred 
during the time in which the equity infusions were received. See, e.g., 
1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products, 62 FR 38257, 38260. Because we 
converted the equity infusions into U.S. dollars, we used as our 
discount rate the U.S. dollar-denominated private creditor's interest 
rate for Argentina as reported in the World Debt Tables for 1993 and 
1994.
    To calculate the net subsidy rate, we then divided the benefit 
amount allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated U.S. dollar total 
sales as of June 30, 2000, which was calculated based on facts 
available in the petitioners' submission. We converted Siderar's total 
sales as of June 30, 2000 into U.S. dollars using the average peso/U.S. 
dollar exchange rate for 1999.\6\ On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.18 percent ad 
valorem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The sales value used for the POI for Siderar is based upon 
the company's Financial Statement at June 30, 2000, which covers the 
fiscal year July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. Siderar's Financial 
Statement was included as Exhibit IV-3a in the November 13, 2000 
petition. To determine an FOB sales value, we deducted the freight 
and transportation costs reported for the company's selling expenses 
(8,650,744 pesos) from the company's sales income of 958,440,592 
pesos. We also note that the peso and dollar exchange rate is set 
basically on a one for one basis, thus exchanging the peso sales 
value to a dollar sales value results in approximately the same 
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. GOA Assumption of SOMISA Debt

    Petitioners explain that the GOA restructured SOMISA in 1992 by 
transferring SOMISA's productive assets to a company named APSA. 
Petitioners allege that, as a part of this restructuring, the GOA 
directly assumed 1,237 million pesos of SOMISA's debt. Petitioners 
allege that APSA should have been liable for this debt and, therefore, 
APSA (a predecessor of Siderar) received countervailable subsidies that 
benefitted subject merchandise during the POI.
    In 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products, we reviewed the 1992 
privatization of SOMISA. See, 62 FR 38257, 38262. As explained in that 
review, the general privatization law (Chapter II of Law 23,696) 
enabled the GOA to (1) decide which assets would be privatized; (2) 
reorganize going concerns and transfer assets and liabilities from 
those concerns prior to privatization; and (3) assume the debt of 
public enterprises undergoing privatization. Further, debt acquired by 
SOMISA up to April 1, 1991, was forgiven by the GOA. As stated above in 
the ``Use of Facts Available'' section of this notice, the GOA and 
Siderar declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, as 
adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that the GOA's 
assumption of debt constitutes a countervailable subsidy within the 
meaning of 771(5) of the Act. Because the debt assumption is limited to 
the producer of the subject merchandise and to government-owned 
companies in the process of being privatized, we preliminarily 
determine that the debt assumption is specific under section 771(5A) of 
the Act. The debt forgiveness also constitutes a financial contribution 
in the form of a grant because it is effectively a direct transfer of 
funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.508(c) (2000), we treated the GOA's 
1992 assumption of SOMISA's debt as a non-recurring grant. We allocated 
the subsidy over the time period corresponding to the AUL beginning in 
1992 using our standard grant allocation methodology.\7\ We obtained 
the amount of SOMISA's debt forgiveness from Attachment 8 of the public 
version of the GOA's February 24, 1994 supplemental questionnaire 
response, which was included as Exhibit III-2 of the petition. 
According to this document, the GOA assumed 1,237 million pesos of the 
company's debt in the course of the company's privatization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that by January 1, 1992, the year in which SOMISA's 
debt was forgiven, Argentina had pegged its currency to the U.S. 
dollar. This action, in part, resulted in the abatement of the high 
inflation rates in the country. Therefore, we did not dollarize non-
recurring subsidies received since 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above in the ``Creditworthiness and Calculation of 
Discount Rate'' section, we have preliminarily determined that the 
company was uncreditworthy in 1992. Therefore, when employing our 
standard grant allocation methodology, we calculated a discount rate in 
accordance with the formula for constructing a long-term benchmark

[[Page 10996]]

interest rate for uncreditworthy companies as stated in 19 CFR 
351.505(a)(3)(iii) (2000) and applied that discount rate when utilizing 
our standard grant allocation methodology.
    To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amount 
allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated total sales as of June 30, 
2000. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable 
subsidy to be 21.79 percent ad valorem.

2. Relief From Liquidation Costs

    Petitioners allege that, upon transferring SOMISA's productive 
assets to APSA, the GOA agreed to cover the liquidation costs of SOMISA 
Residual.\8\ These alleged costs include closing down and dismantling 
redundant facilities and environmental liabilities. Petitioners 
provided a portion of the contract between the GOA and APSA for the 
transfer of shares. See the GOA's November 26, 1993 supplemental 
questionnaire response, which was included as Exhibit IV-16 of the 
November 13, 2000 petition. Petitioners explain that section 5.9.1(i)-
(iv) of this contract stipulates that the GOA will compensate APSA for 
any obligation or damages incurred due to environmental liabilities 
which occurs during the first 18 months after privatization. They also 
state that section 5.8 of the contract stipulates similar indemnities 
regarding occupational health and safety liabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ SOMISA Residual is the name that petitioners use to describe 
the company that they allege was set up by the GOA to assume all of 
the unwanted assets and liabilities that the government did not want 
to attribute to APSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the GOA had the discretion to reorganize going 
concerns and transfer assets and liabilities from those concerns prior 
to privatization as well as covering liabilities arising from these 
actions. As stated above in the ``Use of Facts Available'' section of 
this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this 
investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we 
preliminarily determine that the above-mentioned information in the 
petition indicates that the GOA undertook liquidation costs that should 
have been attributed to APSA. Because this relief of liquidation 
expenses is limited to the producer of the subject merchandise and to 
government-owned companies in the process of being privatized, we 
preliminarily determine that this program is specific under section 
771(5A) of the Act. The relief from the liquidation costs also 
constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a grant because it 
is effectively a direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.
    To calculate the countervailable benefit under this program, we 
treated the GOA's 1992 assumption of liquidation costs as a non-
recurring grant. We then allocated the subsidy over the time period 
corresponding to the AUL beginning in the year in which the liabilities 
were assumed by the GOA using our standard grant allocation 
methodology. Because we have preliminarily determined that the company 
was uncreditworthy in 1992, we used as our discount rate the 
uncreditworthy benchmark discussed above. We obtained the amount of the 
liquidation expenses from page 28 of the GOA's November 26, 1993 
supplemental questionnaire response, which was included as Exhibit III-
1 of the petition. According to this document, the GOA assumed 
43,700,000 pesos in claims against the company during the privatization 
and liquidation process of the company. We have not been able to 
determine the amount of environmental liabilities assumed by the GOA on 
behalf of the producer of the subject merchandise. We will continue to 
try to quantify these liabilities for the final determination. 
Therefore, for the purpose of this preliminary determination, the 
estimated subsidy rate is based solely on the reported 43,700,000 
figure of assumed relief from liquidation expenses.
    To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amount 
allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated total sales as of June 30, 
2000. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable 
subsidy to be 0.90 percent ad valorem.

4. Additional Subsidies From Reorganization/Privatization Under Decree 
1144/92

    Petitioners allege that, pursuant to Decree 1144/92, the GOA 
cancelled all of SOMISA's debt that it had incurred from April 1, 1991, 
through January 1, 1992, exempted SOMISA from the stamp tax and from 
other taxes which were imposed on the transfer of assets and land, and 
assumed SOMISA's early retirement benefit liabilities that it had 
incurred prior to its privatization. In 1991 Cold-Rolled Flat Products, 
the Department acknowledged the bestowal of these subsidies under 
Decree 1144/92 but determined that any potential benefits would have 
been realized subsequent to the period covered by that proceeding (see 
62 FR 38257, 38262).
    As stated above in the ``Use of Facts Available'' section of this 
notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this 
investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we 
preliminarily determine that this program conferred countervailable 
benefits upon Siderar during the POI in the form of (1) retirement 
payments to employees made by the GOA on behalf of SOMISA; (2) stamp 
tax exemptions; (3) SOMISA's retention of labor liabilities that should 
have passed on to APSA, a Siderar predecessor; and (4) the GOA's 
forgiveness of SOMISA debt that accrued between April 1, 1991, through 
January 1, 1992. Because this assistance was limited to the producer of 
the subject merchandise and to government-owned companies in the 
process of being privatized, we preliminarily determine that this 
program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. The benefits 
received under this program also constitute a financial contribution in 
the form of a grant because they are effectively a direct transfer of 
funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefits under this program, we treated the 
subsidies described above as non-recurring grants received in 1992. 
With respect to the stamp tax exemption, we note that this exemption 
was tied to the capital assets of the company. Therefore, we are also 
determining this tax exemption to be a non-recurring benefit under 19 
CFR 351.524(c)(2) (2000). We then allocated the subsidies over the time 
period corresponding to the AUL using our standard grant allocation 
methodology. Because we have preliminarily determined that the company 
was uncreditworthy in 1992, we used as our discount rate the 
uncreditworthy benchmark discussed above.
    We derived the grant amounts for the retirement payments, retention 
of labor liabilities, and stamp tax exemptions by using information 
from the public version of the GOA's November 26, 1993 and February 24, 
1994 questionnaire responses, which were included as Exhibits III-1 and 
III-2 of the petition. According to page 35 of the November 26, 1993 
GOA questionnaire response, the amount of the stamp tax exemption was 
equal to 6,396,179.88 pesos. In addition, according to page 18 of the 
November 26, 1993 GOA questionnaire response, the GOA also assumed 
12,576,399.85 pesos of the company's labor and social security 
obligations during the company's privatization. Furthermore, according 
to page 8 of the February 24, 1994 supplemental questionnaire response, 
the GOA paid 164,470,422.93 pesos to restructure the company's 
workforce during its privatization.

[[Page 10997]]

    We derived the grant amount for the forgiveness of debt that 
accrued between April 1, 1991, through January 1, 1992 by taking the 
difference between SOMISA's ``Other Debt'' liabilities between June 30, 
1991, and June 30, 1992. Based upon this data, we derived a reported 
debt assumption of 126,296,883 pesos. We obtained information on 
SOMISA's liabilities from the company's 1992 Financial Statement, which 
was included as Exhibit III-15 of the petition. We assumed that the 
difference in these liabilities was the result of debt assumed by the 
GOA. We assumed that the reduction in these liabilities was the result 
of the GOA's debt assumption because the company could not pay its own 
liabilities because it was losing approximately 20 million dollars a 
month during this time and its operations were being supported by the 
accumulation of debt. See R. Mooney and S. Griffith, ``Privatizing a 
Distressed State-Owned Enterprise: Lessons Learned through 
Privatization Work in Argentina's Steel Sector,'' Columbia Journal of 
World Business (Spring 1993) which was included as Exhibit IV-4 of the 
November 13, 2000 petition.
    To calculate the net subsidy rate for this program, we divided the 
above-listed benefit amounts allocable to the POI by Siderar's 
estimated total sales as of June 30, 2000. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 5.46 
percent ad valorem.

5. Investment Commitment

    Petitioners allege that, at the time of the company's privatization 
in 1992, the GOA required all bidders to infuse $100 million into the 
company within two years of the sale. Petitioners allege that the 
investment commitment constitutes an indirect subsidy induced by GOA 
action in which the GOA ``directed or entrusted'' the purchasers of the 
producer of the subject merchandise to make a $100 million infusion 
into the company. Petitioners further allege that Siderar continued to 
benefit from this $100 million contribution during the POI. In support 
of the allegation, petitioners cite to a section of GOA Law 24,045 and 
to GOA questionnaire responses from a prior proceeding in which the 
terms of the investment commitment are described.
    As stated above in the ``Use of Facts Available'' section of this 
notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to participate in this 
investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts available, we 
preliminarily determine that the investment commitment was conducted at 
the behest of the GOA, and that this investment conferred 
countervailable benefits upon Siderar during the POI. Because this 
assistance was limited to the producer of the subject merchandise, we 
preliminarily determine that this program is specific under section 
771(5A) of the Act. The investment commitment received under this 
program also constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(D)(iv) of the Act.
    Information from the GOA's November 26, 1993 questionnaire 
response, which was included as Exhibit III-1 in the petition, 
indicates a portion of the investment commitment was made in 1993. 
Accordingly, we have treated that portion of the investment commitment 
as a non-recurring grant received in 1993. In addition, we are assuming 
that the remaining balance of the investment commitment was made in the 
following year because the full amount of the investment commitment had 
to be paid within two years of the company's sale. Thus, we have 
treated the remaining balance as a non-recurring grant received in 
1994. We note that information in the petition indicates that the 
company was transferred by the GOA to private parties in 1992. 
Therefore, we have used 1992 as the date of approval for the investment 
commitment.
    To calculate the benefits under this program, we treated the 
investment commitment as a non-recurring grant. We then allocated the 
subsidies over the time period corresponding to the AUL using our 
standard grant allocation methodology. Because we have preliminarily 
determined that the company was uncreditworthy in 1992, we used as our 
discount rate the uncreditworthy benchmark discussed above.
    To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit amounts 
allocable to the POI by Siderar's estimated total sales as of June 30, 
2000. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable 
subsidy to be 2.03 percent ad valorem.

6. Rebate of Indirect Taxes (Reembolso)

    Under the Reembolso program, the GOA provides a cumulative tax 
rebate paid upon export and the rebate is calculated as a percentage of 
the f.o.b. invoice of the exported merchandise. In October 1986, the 
GOA through Decree 1555/86 established three broad rebate levels 
covering all products and industry sectors. The rates for levels I, II, 
and III were 10 percent, 12.5 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. 
According to the petition, the subject merchandise is classified in 
level I and is eligible for a 10 percent rebate. The Department has 
previously found that this program provides a countervailable benefit 
to Argentine exporters. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determinations and Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products From Argentina, 53 FR 37619 
(September 27, 1988).
    Under 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4) (2000), the entire amount of the rebate 
confers a benefit unless the government of the country subject to the 
investigation has confirmed which inputs are consumed in the production 
of the exported product and in what amounts, and has confirmed which 
indirect taxes are imposed on those inputs. We note that according to 
the company's financial statement covering the POI, it received export 
rebates under this program during 1999. Because the GOA has not 
established that the Reembolso rebate only refunds the actual indirect 
taxes incurred on inputs of items consumed in the production of exports 
of the subject merchandises, we preliminarily determine that the entire 
rebate is countervailable under 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4) (2000). Therefore, 
the calculated net countervailable subsidy for this program during the 
POI is 10.00 percent ad valorem.

7. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing

    On September 24, 1982, the Central Bank of Argentina established a 
post-financing program for exports under Circular OPRAC 1-9. OPRAC 1-9 
loans are granted for up to 30 percent of the peso equivalent of the 
foreign currency in which the export transaction was paid. The term of 
the loan is 180 days. The interest rate charged on OPRAC 1-9 loans is 
the regulated rate used by commercial banks, as required under the 
regulations of the Central Bank of Argentina.
    Petitioners allege that Siderar benefitted from pre- and post-
export financing during the POI. As stated above in the ``Use of Facts 
Available'' section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar declined to 
participate in this investigation. Therefore, based on adverse facts 
available, we preliminarily determine that Siderar received 
countervailable benefits under this program. We note that according to 
the company's financial statement covering the POI, it received import 
and export financing during 1999.
    In Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products from Argentina: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing 
Duty Order, 49 FR 18006, 18007 (April 26,

[[Page 10998]]

1984) (Investigation of Cold-Rolled Flat Products), we determined that 
SOMISA, a predecessor of Siderar, used and benefitted from pre- and 
post-shipment export financing. In the absence of a response from the 
GOA and Siderar, we are assuming, as adverse facts available, that the 
level of financing Siderar and its predecessors received under this 
program has remained unchanged since the Investigation of Cold-Rolled 
Flat Products. Therefore, to calculate the net subsidy rate for Siderar 
under this program, we are using the net subsidy rate calculated for 
its predecessor, SOMISA, in the Investigation of Cold-Rolled Flat 
Products.
    We note that in an attempt to corroborate the net subsidy rate 
calculated in the Investigation of Cold-Rolled Flat Products, we 
reviewed the information in the petition, including SOMISA's 1991 and 
1992 Financial Statements and Siderar's June 30, 2000 Financial 
Statement. However, the petition and the financial statements did not 
provide any data that could be used to quantify SOMISA's or Siderar's 
use of the program. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net 
countervailable subsidy to be 0.01 percent ad valorem.

8. Zero-Tariff Turn Key Bill

    Petitioners allege that the GOA, through the state-owned Investment 
and Foreign Trade Bank (BICE), provides duty exemptions/reductions that 
are contingent upon export performance.
    Information from a World Trade Organization publication indicates 
that ``direct assistance has been provided to exports under turn key 
contracts.'' Furthermore, an article from the newspaper La Nacion 
states that under the program, companies designated as turn key plants 
would benefit from ``subsidized import tariffs.'' We note that both of 
these articles were included in the petition. See Exhibits IV-5 and IV-
9 of the November 13, 2000 petition, respectively. As stated in the 
``Use of Facts Available'' section of this notice, the GOA and Siderar 
declined to participate in this investigation. Therefore, based on 
adverse facts available, we preliminarily determine that the 
information in the petition indicates that Siderar received 
countervailable benefits under this program. Because this program is 
only available to exporters, we preliminarily determine that this 
program constitutes an export subsidy under section 771(5A)(A) of the 
Act. A financial contribution is also conferred by this program in the 
form of revenue forgone within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of 
the Act.
    The article from La Nacion states that in 1997 the GOA approved 
under the turn key bill $207 million in tariff exemptions for 114 
investment projects, including investment projects undertaken by 
Siderar. As adverse facts available, we are assuming that Siderar's 
share of exemptions was equal to those received by the other projects. 
We note that 19 CFR 351.524(c) (2000) states that tax exemptions can be 
treated as recurring benefits that are allocated (e.g., expensed) in 
their entirety to the year of receipt. As adverse facts available, we 
are assuming that Siderar received the tariff exemptions on a recurring 
basis in an amount equal to the tariff exemptions that we estimated for 
1997. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Siderar received a 
countervailable benefit under this program during the POI.
    To calculate the benefit from this program, we divided the amount 
of Siderar's 1999 tariff exemptions by its estimated value of total 
exports for the POI.\9\ We used the estimated value of total exports 
rather than total sales because this program is an export subsidy under 
section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. We note that Siderar's estimated tariff 
exemptions were denominated in U.S. dollars. Therefore, we converted 
the amount of the tariff exemptions into pesos using the average peso/
U.S. dollar exchange rate for 1999. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the net countervailable subsidy rate to be 0.42 percent ad 
valorem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Using adverse facts available, we estimated Siderar's export 
sales as of June 30, 2000, by multiplying the ratio of its export to 
total shipments in net tons by the total sales figure discussed 
above. We applied this same ratio to the estimated freight figure 
discussed above. We then subtracted the estimated freight on export 
sales from the estimated export sales figure to arrive at an 
estimated f.o.b. export sales figure as of June 30, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 
calculated an individual rate for the company under investigation, 
Siderar. With respect to the ``all others'' rate, section 
705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable 
subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually 
investigated are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the 
Department may use any reasonable method to establish an ``all others'' 
rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this 
case, although the rate for the only other investigated company is 
based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act, there 
is no other information on the record upon which we could determine an 
``all others'' rate. As a result, we have used the rate for Siderar as 
the ``all others'' rate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Producer/exporter               Net subsidy rate (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siderar...................................  40.79 Ad Valorem
All Others................................  40.79 Ad Valorem
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of the 
subject merchandise from Argentina, which are entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or 
bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated 
above. This suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to 
be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Individuals who wish 
to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the

[[Page 10999]]

time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled 
time.
    Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) 
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be 
raised at the hearing. In addition, six copies of the business 
proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of 
the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later 
than 50 days from the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies of the business 
proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of 
the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no 
later than 5 days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments 
should be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be 
considered if received within the time limits specified above.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is 
fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration.

    Dated: February 7, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement II.
[FR Doc. 01-4281 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P