10990 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices

above except if the rate is de minimis,

then no cash deposit will be required;

(2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not covered in

this review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will be 4.73 percent, the

‘‘all-others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of

administrative review for a subsequent

review period.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the

Act.

Dated: February 12, 2001.

Timothy J. Hauser,

Acting Under Secretary for International

Trade.

Appendix—Issues in Decision

Memorandum

Comments

1. Ministerial Errors

2. Allocation Methodology Used to Calculate

U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses

[FR Doc. 01–4283 Filed 2–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–401–401]

Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Sweden: Rescission of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1999, in

response to a request from respondent,

the Department of Commerce initiated

an administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on carbon

steel products from Sweden. The review

covers the period January 1, 1998

through December 31, 1998. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),

the Department is now rescinding this

review because SSAB Svenskt Stal AB

(SSAB) (respondent) has withdrawn its

request for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tipten Troidl or Gayle Longest, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 29, 1999, the Department

received a request for an administrative

review of the countervailing duty order

on certain steel products from Sweden

from SSAB, for the period January 1,

1998 through December 31, 1998. On

December 3, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 67846) a notice of ‘‘Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review’’ initiating the administrative

review. On September 7, 2000, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (65 FR 54229) a notice of

‘‘Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review and

Extension of Time Limit for Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review.’’ On November

2, 2000, the International Trade

Commission (ITC) made a negative

determination in the sunset review of

Certain Steel Products from Sweden;

thus the order was to be revoked by the

Department of Commerce effective

January 1, 2000. On December 15, 2000,

the Department published in the

Federal Register (65 FR 78467) a notice

of ‘‘Revocation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders’’ which

revoked the countervailing duty order

on certain carbon steel products from

Sweden, effective January 1, 2000.

On January 17, 2001, respondent

withdrew its request for review because

of the revocation of the order. The

applicable regulation, 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that

requested an administrative review

withdraws the request within 90 days of

the date of publication of the notice of

initiation of the requested review, the

Secretary will rescind the review.

Although the request for recession was

made after the 90 day deadline, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),

the Secretary may extend this time limit

if the Secretary decides it is reasonable

to do so. Due to the fact that SSAB was

the only party to request an

administrative review, we find it

reasonable to accept the party’s

withdrawal of its request for review.

Moreover, we have received no other

submissions regarding SSAB’s request

for withdrawal of the administrative

review. Therefore, we are rescinding

this review of the countervailing duty

order on certain carbon steel products

from Sweden for SSAB covering the

period January 1, 1998, through

December 31, 1998.

This notice is issued and published in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4)

and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: February 13, 2001.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–4289 Filed 2–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices 10991

1Upon 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).

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.

Scope of the Investigation

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is certain hot-rolled flatrolled 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:

• 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 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 carbonquality 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

10992 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices

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 hotrolled 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices 10993

2We 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.

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.

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 GrainOriented 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 presale entity if, based on the totality of the

factors considered, we determine that

the entity sold in the change-inownership 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

10994 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices

3See the February 7, 2001, memorandum to the

file that placed the information from Siderar’s

website onto the record of this investigation.

4We note that the information in the report was

based on a trip to Siderar that Paine Webber

representtives took on June 6, 1994.

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 hotrolled steel at its manufacturing facility

in San Nicola ́s. 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 hotrolled 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

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 nonrecurring 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 FlatRolled 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) (ColdRolled 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 ‘‘noncurrent 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices 10995

5As 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.

6The 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.

7We 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.

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

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.

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 nonrecurring 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.

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

10996 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices

8SOMISA 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.

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.

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 governmentowned 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices 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 abovelisted 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 nonrecurring 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 postfinancing 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 FlatRolled Products from Argentina: Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination and Countervailing Duty

Order, 49 FR 18006, 18007 (April 26,

10998 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2001 / Notices

9Using 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.

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 ColdRolled Flat Products.

We note that in an attempt to

corroborate the net subsidy rate

calculated in the Investigation of ColdRolled 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 Nacio ́n 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 Nacio ́n 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.

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 nonprivileged 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

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).