Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices 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 nonproprietary 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–063]

Certain Iron-Metal Castings From

India: Notice of Court Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of court decision.

SUMMARY: On January 24, 2001, the

United States Court of International

Trade (CIT) affirmed the International

Trade Administration’s remand

determination regarding the calculation

of subsidies provided under section

80HHC of India’s Income Tax Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement VI, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under section 80HHC of India’s

Income Tax Act, exporters of iron-metal

castings are eligible to claim tax

exemptions based on their export

profits. In Certain Iron-Metal Castings

From India; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,849 (Aug. 29,

1995) (the 1990 period of reveiw), the

Department calculated these subsidies

without adjusting for other subsidies

received under India’s International

Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS)

and India’s Cash Compensatory Support

Scheme (CCS). In Crescent Foundry Co.

Pvt. Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op.

00–148 (CIT Nov. 9, 2000), the court

remanded the final results of the 1990

administrative review and directed the

Department to recalculate these

subsidies by subtracting IPRS rebates

and CCS rebate from taxable income

before determining any section 80HHC

benefit. The Department’s subsequent

remand determination reflected the

Court’s instructions and was affirmed in

Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd, et al. v.

United States, Slip Op. 01–6 (CIT Jan.

24, 2001).

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

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

1990) (Timken), the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held

that, pursuant to 19 USC section

1516a(e), the Department must publish

a notice of a court decision which is not

‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department

determination, and must suspend

liquidation of entries pending a

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

opinion in Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt.

Ltd, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 01–

6 (CIT Jan. 24, 2001), constitutes a

decision not in harmony with the

Department’s final affirmative results of

countervailing duty administrative

review. Publication of this notice fulfills

the Timken requirement.

Accordingly, the Department will

continue to suspend liquidation

pending the expiration of the period of

appeal, or, if appealed, upon a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.

Dated: February 13, 2001.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–4286 Filed 2–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–063]

Certain Iron-Metal Castings From

India: Notice of Court Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of court decision.

SUMMARY: On January 24, 2001, the

United States Court of International

Trade (CIT) affirmed the International

Trade Administration’s remand

determination regarding the calculation

of subsidies provided under section

80HHC of India’s Income Tax Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement VI, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under section 80HHC of India’s

Income Tax Act, exporters of iron-metal

castings are eligible to claim tax

exemptions based on their export

profits. In Certain Iron-Metal Castings

From India; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,843 (Aug. 29,

1995) (the 1991 period of review), the

Department calculated these subsidies

without adjusting for other subsidies

received under India’s International

Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS)

and India’s Cash Compensatory Support

Scheme (CCS). In Kajaria Iron Castings

Pvt. Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op.

00–147 (CIT Nov. 9, 2000), the court

remanded the final results of the 1991

administrative review and directed the

Department to recalculate these

subsidies by subtracting IPRS rebates

and CCS rebates from taxable income

before determining any section 80HHC

benefit. The Department’s subsequent

remand determination reflected the

Court’s instructions and was affirmed in

Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd, et al. v.

United States, Slip Op. 01–5 (CIT Jan.

24, 2001).