Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62837-62841 [E7-21874]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices
62837
WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE FROM THE PRC—Continued
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................
Winmost Enterprises Limited ...............................................................................................................................................................
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd. ......................................................................................................................................................................
Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited ..................................................................................................................................................
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd. ..............................................................................................................................................
PRC-Wide Rate ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Assessment Rates
The Department has determined, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. For
customers/importers of respondents that
did not report entered value, we
calculated customer/importer-specific
antidumping duty assessment amounts
based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales of subject merchandise
to the total quantity of subject
merchandise sold in those transactions.
For customers/importers of respondents
that reported entered value, we
calculated customer-specific
antidumping duty assessment amounts
based on customer/importer-specific ad
valorem rates in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1). For the companies
receiving a separate rate that were not
selected for individual review (i.e.,
separate rate companies) we will
calculate an assessment rate based on
the weighted average of the cash deposit
rates calculated for the companies
selected for individual review excluding
any that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on AFA pursuant to section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the
second amended final results of these
new shipper and administrative
reviews.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of these second amended
final results of this administrative
review and new shippers for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be the rates shown for
those companies (except if the rate is de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a
zero cash deposit will be required for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:14 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
that company); (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate of 216.01 percent; and (4) for
all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporters that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
These second amended final results
are published in accordance with
sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 5, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–21955 Filed 11–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–489–502]
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard
Pipe From Turkey: Preliminary Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on
certain welded carbon steel standard
pipe from Turkey for the period January
1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. We
preliminarily find that the net subsidy
rate for the company under review is de
minimis. See the ‘‘Preliminary Results
of Review’’ section of this notice, infra.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35.78
35.78
35.78
35.78
35.78
216.01
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
(See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section,
infra.)
DATES:
Effective Date: November 7,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 1986, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
CVD order on certain welded carbon
steel pipe and tube products from
Turkey. See Countervailing Duty Order:
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and
Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 7984
(March 7, 1986). On March 2, 2007, the
Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of this CVD order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 9505
(March 2, 2007). On March 16, 2007, we
received a timely request for review
from Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘BMB’’), Borusan
Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (‘‘Istikbal’’) and
their affiliates (collectively, the Borusan
Group (‘‘Borusan’’)), a Turkish producer
and exporter of the subject merchandise.
On April 27, 2007, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the
CVD order on certain welded carbon
steel standard pipe from Turkey,
covering the period January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 2007).
On May 1, 2007, the Department
issued a questionnaire to Borusan and
the Government of the Republic of
Turkey (‘‘the GOT’’); we received
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
62838
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices
Borusan’s and the GOT’s questionnaire
responses on July 5, 2007.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), this review covers only
those producers or exporters of the
subject merchandise for which a review
was specifically requested. The only
company subject to this review is
Borusan. This review covers 11
programs.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain welded carbon steel pipe and
tube with an outside diameter of 0.375
inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of
any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from
Turkey. These products are currently
provided for under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) as item numbers 7306.30.10,
7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period for which we are
measuring subsidies is January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006.
Company History
BMB was the only company in the
Borusan Group that produced the
subject merchandise during the period
of review (‘‘POR’’).1 During 2006, all
subject merchandise sold to the United
States was either sold directly to the
U.S. customer by BMB, or first sold by
BMB to Istikbal, the affiliated export
sales company, and then resold to an
unaffiliated U.S. customer.
BMB’s shares are majority held by
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim
Holding A.S., a holding company
owned by Borusan Holding A.S.2 and by
Mannesmannrohren-Werke A.G., a
publicly traded company in Germany.
Istikbal is majority-owned by Borusan
Holding A.S.
Subsidies Valuation Information
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Benchmark Interest Rates
To determine whether governmentprovided loans under review conferred
a benefit, the Department uses, where
possible, company-specific interest rates
for comparable commercial loans. See
1 BMB was previously named Borusan Birlesik
Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic. (‘‘BBBF’’). The
company’s name was changed to BMB on December
13, 2004. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon
Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, 71 FR 43111 (July
31, 2006) (‘‘2004 Pipe Final’’), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Company
Information’’ (‘‘2004 Pipe Memorandum’’).
2 Borusan Holding A.S. is owned by the family of
Asim Kocabiyik, the company’s founder.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:14 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
19 CFR 351.505(a). Where no companyspecific benchmark interest rates are
available, as is the case in this review,
the Department’s regulations direct us to
use a national average interest rate as
the benchmark. See 19 CFR
351.505(a)(3)(ii). According to the GOT,
however, there is no official national
average short-term interest rate
available.3 Therefore, we have
calculated the benchmark interest rate
for short-term New Turkish Lira
(‘‘YTL’’) denominated loans based on
short-term interest rate data for 2006, as
reported by The Economist.4
To calculate the benchmark, we
sourced the short-term interest rate
reported in the last weekly publication
of The Economist for each quarter of
2006, i.e., the March 23, 2006, June 22,
2006, September 28, 2006, and
December 19, 2006, editions. We then
simple averaged those rates to calculate
an annual short-term interest rate for
Turkey.5 We then compared the
nominal average interest rate with the
interest rates that the company paid
against the YTL-denominated Foreign
Trade Companies Short-Term Export
Credits and Pre-Export Credits. See
Memorandum to the File concerning the
Calculations for the Preliminary Results
of the 2006 Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe
from Turkey, at 2 (November 1, 2007).
This methodology is consistent with the
Department’s practice. See Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Standard Pipe from Turkey, 72 FR
13479 (March 22, 2007) (‘‘2005 Pipe
Final’’) (affirming methodology from the
preliminary results, 71 FR 68550, 68551
(November 27, 2006)); see also, 2004
Pipe Memorandum at ‘‘Benchmark
Interest Rates’’ and ‘‘Comment 1:
Benchmark Interest Rate for Turkish lira
Loans.’’
3 See GOT’s Questionnaire Response, at 19 (July
5, 2007).
4 In each issue, The Economist reports short-term
interest data on a percentage per annum basis for
select countries.
5 The short-term YTL interest rates sourced from
The Economist do not include commissions or fees
paid to commercial banks, i.e., they are nominal
rates. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
from Turkey; Final Negative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 67 FR 55815 (August 30, 2002)
(‘‘Wire Rod’’), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Benchmark Interest
Rates’’ (‘‘Wire Rod Memorandum’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To
Be Countervailable
A. Deduction From Taxable Income for
Export Revenue
Addendum 4108 of Article 40 of the
Income Tax Law, dated June 2, 1995,
allows companies that operate
internationally to claim, directly on
their corporate income tax returns, a tax
deduction equal to 0.5 percent of the
foreign exchange revenue earned from
exports and other international
activities.6 The income tax deduction
for export earnings may either be taken
as a lump sum or be used to cover
certain undocumented expenses, which
were incurred through international
activities, that would otherwise be nondeductible for tax purposes (e.g.,
expenses paid in cash, such as for
lodging, gasoline, and food).
Consistent with prior determinations,
we preliminarily find that this tax
deduction is a countervailable subsidy.
See 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429
(affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at
68552) and 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at
‘‘Deduction from Taxable Income for
Export Revenue.’’ The deduction
provides a financial contribution within
the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), because it represents revenue
forgone by the GOT. The deduction
provides a benefit in the amount of the
tax savings to the company pursuant to
section 771(5)(E) of the Act. It is also
specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the
Act because its receipt is contingent
upon export earnings. In this review, no
new information or evidence of changed
circumstances has been submitted to
warrant reconsideration of the
Department’s prior findings.
During 2006, the review period, BMB
and Istikbal filed separate corporate
income tax returns for tax year 2005.
Each company utilized the deduction
for export earnings with respect to its
2005 income taxes.
The Department typically treats a tax
deduction as a recurring benefit in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1).
To calculate the countervailable subsidy
rate for this program, we calculated the
tax savings realized by BMB and Istikbal
in 2006, as a result of the deduction for
export earnings. We then divided that
benefit by Borusan’s total export sales
for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the net countervailable
subsidy for this program to be 0.12
percent ad valorem.
6 These actions include construction, repair,
installation, and transportation activities that occur
abroad.
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices
B. Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term
Export Credits
The Foreign Trade Company (‘‘FTC’’)
loan program was established by the
Export Credit Bank of Turkey (‘‘Export
Bank’’) to meet the working capital
needs of exporters, manufacturerexporters, and manufacturers supplying
exporters. This program is specifically
designed to benefit Foreign Trade
Corporate Companies (‘‘FTCC’’) and
Sectoral Foreign Trade Companies
(‘‘SFTC’’).7 An FTCC is a company
whose export performance was at least
US$100 million in the previous year
and whose paid in capital is at least
YTL 2 million.
To eligible applicants, the Export
Bank provides short-term export loans
directly to companies in Turkish lira or
foreign currency, based on their prior
export performance, up to 100 percent
of the FOB export commitment. The
loan interest rates are set by the Export
Bank and the maturity of the loans is
usually 180 days for YTL-denominated
loans and 360 days for foreign currencydenominated loans. To qualify for an
FTC loan, along with the necessary
application documents, a company must
provide a bank letter of guarantee,
equivalent to the loan’s principal and
interest amount, because the financing
is a direct credit from the Export Bank.
Istikbal, which has FTC status, was the
only Borusan company to receive FTC
credits during the POR.
Consistent with previous
determinations, we preliminarily find
that these loans confer a countervailable
subsidy within the meaning of section
771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe
Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming
preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552);
and 2004 Pipe Memorandum at
‘‘Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term
Export Credits.’’ The loans constitute a
financial contribution in the form of a
direct transfer of funds from the GOT,
under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A
benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii)
of the Act in the amount of the
difference between the payments of
interest that Istikbal made on its loans
during the POR and the payments the
company would have made on
comparable commercial loans. The
program is also specific in accordance
with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act
because receipt of the loans is
contingent upon export performance.
Further, the FTC loans are not tied to a
particular export destination. Therefore,
7 To promote exports and diversity in products
exported, the GOT encouraged small and medium
scale enterprises to form SFTC, which comprise five
to ten companies that operate together in a similar
sector.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:14 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
we have treated this program as an
untied export loan program, which
renders it countervailable regardless of
whether the loans were used for exports
to the United States. See id.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we
have calculated the benefit as the
difference between the payments of
interest that Istikbal made on its FTC
loans during the POR and the payments
the company would have made on
comparable commercial loans.8 In
accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the
Act, we subtracted from the benefit
amount the fees that Istikbal paid to
commercial banks for the required
letters of guarantee. We then divided the
resulting benefit by Borusan’s total
export sales for 2006. On this basis, we
preliminarily find that the net
countervailable subsidy for this program
is 0.06 percent ad valorem.
C. Pre-Export Credits
This program is similar to the FTC
credit program described above;
however, companies classified as either
FTC or SFTC are not eligible for preexport loans. Under the pre-export
credit program, a company’s past export
performance is considered in evaluating
its eligibility for loans and establishing
the credit limit. Specifically, to be
eligible for a loan, a company must have
exported more than $200,000 of goods
in the prior 12-month period. Like FTC
loans, the Export Bank directly extends
to companies’ pre-export loans, which
are contingent upon export
commitment. The loans, whose interest
rates are set by the Export Bank, are
denominated in either Turkish lira or
foreign currency and have a maximum
maturity of 360 and 540 days,
respectively. To quality for a pre-export
loan, along with necessary application
documents, a company must provide a
bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to
the loan’s principal and interest
amount. During the POR, BMB paid
interest against pre-export loans.
Consistent with previous
determinations, we preliminarily find
that these loans confer a countervailable
subsidy within the meaning of section
771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe
Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming
preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552);
and 2004 Pipe Memorandum at ‘‘PreExport Credits.’’ The loans constitute a
financial contribution in the form of a
direct transfer of funds from the GOT,
under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A
benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii)
of the Act in the amount of the
8 See ‘‘Benchmark Interest Rates,’’ supra
(discussing the benchmark rates used in these
preliminary results).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62839
difference between the payments of
interest that BMB made on the loans
during the POR and the payments the
company would have made on
comparable commercial loans. The
program is also specific in accordance
with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act
because receipt of the loans is
contingent upon export performance.
Further, like the FTC loans, these
loans are not tied to a particular export
destination. Therefore, we have treated
this program as an untied export loan
program rendering it countervailable
regardless of whether the loans were
used for exports to the United States.
See id.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we
have calculated the benefit as the
difference between the payments of
interest that BMB made on its preexport loans during the POR and the
payments the company would have
made on comparable commercial loans.9
In accordance with section 771(6)(A) of
the Act, we subtracted from the benefit
amount the fees which BMB paid to
commercial banks for the required
letters of guarantee. We then divided the
resulting benefit by Borusan’s total
export value for 2006. On this basis, we
preliminarily find that the net
countervailable subsidy for this program
is 0.05 percent ad valorem.
II. Program Preliminarily Determined To
Not Confer Countervailable Benefits
A. Inward Processing Certificate
Exemption
Under the Inward Processing
Certificate (‘‘IPC’’) 10 program,
companies are exempt from paying
customs duties and value added taxes
(‘‘VAT’’) on raw materials and
intermediate unfinished goods imported
to be used in the production of exported
goods. Companies may choose whether
to be exempted from the applicable
duties and taxes upon importation (i.e.,
the Suspension System) or have the
duties and taxes reimbursed after
exportation of the finished goods (i.e.,
the Drawback System). Under the
Suspension System, companies provide
a letter of guarantee that is returned to
the companies upon fulfillment of the
export commitment.
To participate in this program, a
company must hold an IPC, which lists
the amount of raw materials/
intermediate unfinished goods to be
9 See ‘‘Benchmark Interest Rates,’’supra
(discussing the benchmark rates used in these
preliminary results).
10 During the POR, the IPC was implemented
under Resolution No. 2005/8391. A copy of this
resolution was submitted by the GOT in its July 5,
2007, Questionnaire Response as Exhibit 23.
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
62840
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
imported and the amount of product to
be exported. To obtain an IPC, an
exporter must submit an application,
which states the amount of imported
raw material required to produce the
finished products and a ‘‘letter of export
commitment,’’ which specifies that the
importer of materials will use the
materials to produce exported goods.
There are two types of IPCs: a D–1
certificate and a D–3 certificate.11
During the POR, Borusan utilized D–1
certificates associated with imports of
hot-rolled coil and zinc used in the
production of carbon steel pipe and
tube. Borusan did not utilize any D–3
certificates during the POR.
An IPC specifies the maximum
quantity of inputs that can be imported
under the program. Under the IPC
program, the value of imported inputs
may not exceed the value of the
exported products. Input/output usage
rates listed on an IPC are set by the GOT
working in conjunction with Turkey’s
Exporter Associations, which are quasigovernmental organizations, which
represent different industries. The
input/output usage rates vary by
product and industry and are
determined using data from capacity
reports submitted by companies that
apply for IPCs. The input/output usage
rates are subject to periodic review and
verification by the GOT. The GOT uses
the input/output usage rates to ensure
that a company’s expected export
quantities are sufficient to cover the
quantity of inputs imported duty-free
under the program.12 Each time a
company imports raw materials on a
duty exempt basis, the company must
present the IPC to Turkish customs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(ii), a
benefit exists to the extent that the
exemption extends to inputs that are not
consumed in the production of the
exported product, making normal
allowances for waste, or if the
exemption covers charges other than
imported charges that are imposed on
the input. In regard to the VAT
exemption granted under this program,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.517(a), in the
11 For more information on D–3 certificates, see
GOT’s Questionnaire Response, at 38–40 (July 5,
2007); 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at ‘‘Inward
Processing Certificate Exemption,’’ and
Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, from Team regarding
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses
submitted by the Government of the Republic of
Turkey, at 9–12 (March 31, 2006) (the public
version of the verification report is available on the
public file in the Department’s Central Records
Unit, room B–099).
12 For more information on how waste/usage rates
are set by the GOT, see 2004 Pipe Memorandum,
at ‘‘Inward Processing Certificate Exemption’’; and
GOT’s Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 5, pages
10–11 (July 14, 2006).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:14 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
case of the exemption upon export of
indirect taxes, a benefit exists to the
extent that the Department determines
that the amount exempted exceeds the
amount levied with respect to the
production and distribution of like
products when sold for domestic
consumption.
In prior reviews, the Department
found that, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.519(a)(4)(i), the GOT has a system
in place to confirm which inputs are
consumed in the production of the
exported product and in what amounts,
and that the system is reasonable for the
purposes intended. See 2005 Pipe Final,
72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary
results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe
Memorandum, at ‘‘Inward Processing
Certificate Exemption.’’ During the POR,
under D–1 certificates, Borusan received
duty and VAT exemptions on certain
imported inputs used in the production
of steel pipes and tubes and not duty or
VAT refunds. There is no evidence on
the record of this review that indicates
the amount of exempted inputs
imported under the program were
excessive or that Borusan used the
imported inputs for any other product
besides those exported. Further, there is
no evidence on the record of this review
to warrant a reconsideration of the
Department’s finding that the GOT’s IPC
monitoring system is reasonable.
Therefore, consistent with the 2005
Pipe Final and 2004 Pipe Final, we
preliminarily determine that the tax and
duty exemptions, which Borusan
received on imported inputs under D–
1 certificates of the IPC program, did not
confer countervailable benefits as
Borusan consumed the imported inputs
in the production of the exported
product, making normal allowance for
waste. We further preliminarily find
that the VAT exemption did not confer
countervailable benefits on Borusan
because the exemption does not exceed
the amount levied with respect to the
production and distribution of like
products when sold for domestic
consumption. Further, because Borusan
did not import any goods under a D–3
certificate during the POR, we
preliminarily determine that this aspect
of the IPC program was not used.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined
To Not Be Used
We examined the following programs
and preliminarily determine that
Borusan did not apply for or receive
benefits under these programs during
the POR:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A. VAT Support Program (Incentive
Premium on Domestically Obtained
Goods)13
B. Pre-Shipment Export Credits
C. Post-Shipment Export Loans
D. Pre-Shipment Rediscount Loans
E. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit
Facilities
F. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of
Fixed Expenditures
G. Regional Subsidies.
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a
subsidy rate for Borusan for the period
January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2006. We preliminarily determine that
the total net countervailable subsidy
rate is 0.23 percent ad valorem, which
is de minimis, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c).
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 15 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this review. If the final results
remain the same as these preliminary
results, the Department will instruct
CBP to liquidate without regard to
countervailing duties all shipments of
subject merchandise produced by
Borusan entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption from
January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2006. The Department will also instruct
CBP not to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties on all
shipments of the subject merchandise
produced by Borusan, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review.
CBP will continue to collect cash
deposits for non-reviewed companies at
the most recent company-specific or
country-wide rate applicable to the
company. Accordingly, the cash deposit
rates that will be applied to companies
covered by this order but not examined
in this review, are those established in
the most recently completed
administrative proceeding for each
company. Those rates shall apply to all
non-reviewed companies until a review
of a company assigned these rates is
requested.
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
13 Although we found this program to be
terminated in Wire Rod, residual payments for
puchases made prior to the program’s termination
were permitted. See Wire Rod Memorandum, at
‘‘VAT Support Program.’’
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
Department will disclose to parties to
the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days
after the date of the public
announcement of this notice. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties
may submit written comments in
response to these preliminary results.
Unless otherwise indicated by the
Department, case briefs must be
submitted within 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs,
limited to arguments raised in case
briefs, must be submitted no later than
five days after the time limit for filing
case briefs, unless otherwise specified
by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit
argument in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Parties
submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs
are requested to provide the Department
copies of the public version on disk.
Case and rebuttal briefs must be served
on interested parties in accordance with
19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice,
interested parties may request a public
hearing on arguments to be raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the
Secretary specifies otherwise, the
hearing, if requested, will be held two
days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results.
Representatives of parties to the
proceeding may request disclosure of
proprietary information under
administrative protective order no later
than 10 days after the representative’s
client or employer becomes a party to
the proceeding, but in no event later
than the date the case briefs, under 19
CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19 CFR
351.305(b)(3). The Department will
publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the
results of its analysis of arguments made
in any case or rebuttal briefs.
This administrative review is issued
and published in accordance with
section 751(a)(1), 777(i)(1) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Public Comment
Submission of Data by State
Educational Agencies
Dated: November 1, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–21874 Filed 11–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:14 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of dates of submission of
State revenue and expenditure reports
for fiscal year (FY) 2007 and of revisions
to those reports.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces
dates for the submission by State
educational agencies (SEAs) of
expenditure and revenue data and
average daily attendance statistics on ED
Form 2447 (the National Public
Education Financial Survey (NPEFS))
for FY 2007. The Secretary sets these
dates to ensure that data are available to
serve as the basis for timely distribution
of Federal funds. The U.S. Bureau of the
Census (Bureau of the Census) is the
data collection agent for the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
The data will be published by NCES and
will be used by the Secretary in the
calculation of allocations for FY 2009
appropriated funds.
DATES: The date on which submissions
will first be accepted is March 17, 2008.
The mandatory deadline for the final
submission of all data, including any
revisions to previously submitted data,
is September 2, 2008.
Addresses and Submission
Information: SEAs may mail ED Form
2447 to: Bureau of the Census,
ATTENTION: Governments Division,
Washington, DC 20233–6800.
SEAs may submit data via the World
Wide Web using the interactive survey
form at surveys.nces.ed.gov/ccdnpefs. If
the Web form is used, it includes a
digital confirmation page where a pin
number may be entered. A successful
entry of the pin number serves as a
signature by the authorizing official. A
certification form also may be printed
from the Web site, and signed by the
authorizing official and mailed to the
Governments Division of the Bureau of
the Census, at the address listed in the
previous paragraph. This signed form
must be mailed within five business
days of Web form data submission.
Alternatively, SEAs may hand deliver
submissions by 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) to:
Governments Division, Bureau of the
Census, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland,
MD 20746.
If an SEA’s submission is received by
the Bureau of the Census after
September 2, 2008, in order for the
submission to be accepted, the SEA
must show one of the following as proof
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62841
that the submission was mailed on or
before the mandatory deadline date:
1. A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service
postmark.
2. A legible mail receipt with the date
of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal
Service.
3. A dated shipping label, invoice, or
receipt from a commercial carrier.
4. Any other proof of mailing
acceptable to the Secretary.
If the SEA mails ED Form 2447
through the U.S. Postal Service, the
Secretary does not accept either of the
following as proof of mailing:
1. A private metered postmark.
2. A mail receipt that is not dated by
the U.S. Postal Service.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not
uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before
relying on this method, an SEA should check
with its local post office.
Ms.
Terri Kennerly, Chief, Bureau of the
Census, ATTENTION: Governments
Division, Washington, DC 20233–6800.
Telephone: (301) 763–1559. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), you may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to: Frank Johnson, National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education, Washington, DC 20208–
5651. Telephone: (202) 502–7362.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
authority of section 153(a)(1)(I) of the
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002,
20 U.S.C. 9543, which authorizes NCES
to gather data on the financing of
education, NCES collects data annually
from SEAs through ED Form 2447. The
report from SEAs includes attendance,
revenue, and expenditure data from
which NCES determines the average
State per-pupil expenditure (SPPE) for
elementary and secondary education, as
defined in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7801(2)).
In addition to utilizing the SPPE data
as general information on the financing
of elementary and secondary education,
the Secretary uses these data directly in
calculating allocations for certain
formula grant programs, including Title
I, Part A of the ESEA, Impact Aid, and
Indian Education programs. Other
programs, such as the Educational
Technology State Grants program (Title
II, Part D of the ESEA), the Education for
Homeless Children and Youth Program
under Title VII of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, the Teacher
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62837-62841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21874]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-489-502]
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe From Turkey:
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the countervailing duty (``CVD'') order on
certain welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey for the period
January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. We preliminarily find that
the net subsidy rate for the company under review is de minimis. See
the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice, infra.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
(See the ``Public Comment'' section, infra.)
DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register
the CVD order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube products
from Turkey. See Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 7984 (March 7, 1986). On
March 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this CVD order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 9505 (March 2,
2007). On March 16, 2007, we received a timely request for review from
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (``BMB''), Borusan
Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (``Istikbal'') and their affiliates
(collectively, the Borusan Group (``Borusan'')), a Turkish producer and
exporter of the subject merchandise. On April 27, 2007, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on certain welded
carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey, covering the period January 1,
2006, through December 31, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27,
2007).
On May 1, 2007, the Department issued a questionnaire to Borusan
and the Government of the Republic of Turkey (``the GOT''); we received
[[Page 62838]]
Borusan's and the GOT's questionnaire responses on July 5, 2007.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review
was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is
Borusan. This review covers 11 programs.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel
pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not
over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey.
These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') as item numbers 7306.30.10,
7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006.
Company History
BMB was the only company in the Borusan Group that produced the
subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR'').\1\ During
2006, all subject merchandise sold to the United States was either sold
directly to the U.S. customer by BMB, or first sold by BMB to Istikbal,
the affiliated export sales company, and then resold to an unaffiliated
U.S. customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BMB was previously named Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari
San ve Tic. (``BBBF''). The company's name was changed to BMB on
December 13, 2004. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe
from Turkey, 71 FR 43111 (July 31, 2006) (``2004 Pipe Final''), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Company
Information'' (``2004 Pipe Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMB's shares are majority held by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim
Holding A.S., a holding company owned by Borusan Holding A.S.\2\ and by
Mannesmannrohren-Werke A.G., a publicly traded company in Germany.
Istikbal is majority-owned by Borusan Holding A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Borusan Holding A.S. is owned by the family of Asim
Kocabiyik, the company's founder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies Valuation Information
Benchmark Interest Rates
To determine whether government-provided loans under review
conferred a benefit, the Department uses, where possible, company-
specific interest rates for comparable commercial loans. See 19 CFR
351.505(a). Where no company-specific benchmark interest rates are
available, as is the case in this review, the Department's regulations
direct us to use a national average interest rate as the benchmark. See
19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). According to the GOT, however, there is no
official national average short-term interest rate available.\3\
Therefore, we have calculated the benchmark interest rate for short-
term New Turkish Lira (``YTL'') denominated loans based on short-term
interest rate data for 2006, as reported by The Economist.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See GOT's Questionnaire Response, at 19 (July 5, 2007).
\4\ In each issue, The Economist reports short-term interest
data on a percentage per annum basis for select countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the benchmark, we sourced the short-term interest rate
reported in the last weekly publication of The Economist for each
quarter of 2006, i.e., the March 23, 2006, June 22, 2006, September 28,
2006, and December 19, 2006, editions. We then simple averaged those
rates to calculate an annual short-term interest rate for Turkey.\5\ We
then compared the nominal average interest rate with the interest rates
that the company paid against the YTL-denominated Foreign Trade
Companies Short-Term Export Credits and Pre-Export Credits. See
Memorandum to the File concerning the Calculations for the Preliminary
Results of the 2006 Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, at 2 (November 1, 2007).
This methodology is consistent with the Department's practice. See
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, 72 FR 13479 (March 22,
2007) (``2005 Pipe Final'') (affirming methodology from the preliminary
results, 71 FR 68550, 68551 (November 27, 2006)); see also, 2004 Pipe
Memorandum at ``Benchmark Interest Rates'' and ``Comment 1: Benchmark
Interest Rate for Turkish lira Loans.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The short-term YTL interest rates sourced from The Economist
do not include commissions or fees paid to commercial banks, i.e.,
they are nominal rates. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
from Turkey; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 67 FR
55815 (August 30, 2002) (``Wire Rod''), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at ``Benchmark Interest Rates'' (``Wire Rod
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable
A. Deduction From Taxable Income for Export Revenue
Addendum 4108 of Article 40 of the Income Tax Law, dated June 2,
1995, allows companies that operate internationally to claim, directly
on their corporate income tax returns, a tax deduction equal to 0.5
percent of the foreign exchange revenue earned from exports and other
international activities.\6\ The income tax deduction for export
earnings may either be taken as a lump sum or be used to cover certain
undocumented expenses, which were incurred through international
activities, that would otherwise be non-deductible for tax purposes
(e.g., expenses paid in cash, such as for lodging, gasoline, and food).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These actions include construction, repair, installation,
and transportation activities that occur abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with prior determinations, we preliminarily find that
this tax deduction is a countervailable subsidy. See 2005 Pipe Final,
72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552) and 2004
Pipe Memorandum, at ``Deduction from Taxable Income for Export
Revenue.'' The deduction provides a financial contribution within the
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''), because it represents revenue forgone by the GOT. The
deduction provides a benefit in the amount of the tax savings to the
company pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act. It is also specific
under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because its receipt is contingent
upon export earnings. In this review, no new information or evidence of
changed circumstances has been submitted to warrant reconsideration of
the Department's prior findings.
During 2006, the review period, BMB and Istikbal filed separate
corporate income tax returns for tax year 2005. Each company utilized
the deduction for export earnings with respect to its 2005 income
taxes.
The Department typically treats a tax deduction as a recurring
benefit in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). To calculate the
countervailable subsidy rate for this program, we calculated the tax
savings realized by BMB and Istikbal in 2006, as a result of the
deduction for export earnings. We then divided that benefit by
Borusan's total export sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the net countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.12
percent ad valorem.
[[Page 62839]]
B. Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credits
The Foreign Trade Company (``FTC'') loan program was established by
the Export Credit Bank of Turkey (``Export Bank'') to meet the working
capital needs of exporters, manufacturer-exporters, and manufacturers
supplying exporters. This program is specifically designed to benefit
Foreign Trade Corporate Companies (``FTCC'') and Sectoral Foreign Trade
Companies (``SFTC'').\7\ An FTCC is a company whose export performance
was at least US$100 million in the previous year and whose paid in
capital is at least YTL 2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ To promote exports and diversity in products exported, the
GOT encouraged small and medium scale enterprises to form SFTC,
which comprise five to ten companies that operate together in a
similar sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To eligible applicants, the Export Bank provides short-term export
loans directly to companies in Turkish lira or foreign currency, based
on their prior export performance, up to 100 percent of the FOB export
commitment. The loan interest rates are set by the Export Bank and the
maturity of the loans is usually 180 days for YTL-denominated loans and
360 days for foreign currency-denominated loans. To qualify for an FTC
loan, along with the necessary application documents, a company must
provide a bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to the loan's principal
and interest amount, because the financing is a direct credit from the
Export Bank. Istikbal, which has FTC status, was the only Borusan
company to receive FTC credits during the POR.
Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that
these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of
section 771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429
(affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe
Memorandum at ``Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credits.''
The loans constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct
transfer of funds from the GOT, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.
A benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount
of the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made
on its loans during the POR and the payments the company would have
made on comparable commercial loans. The program is also specific in
accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the
loans is contingent upon export performance. Further, the FTC loans are
not tied to a particular export destination. Therefore, we have treated
this program as an untied export loan program, which renders it
countervailable regardless of whether the loans were used for exports
to the United States. See id.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as
the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made on
its FTC loans during the POR and the payments the company would have
made on comparable commercial loans.\8\ In accordance with section
771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees
that Istikbal paid to commercial banks for the required letters of
guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total
export sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the
net countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.06 percent ad
valorem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``Benchmark Interest Rates,'' supra (discussing the
benchmark rates used in these preliminary results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Pre-Export Credits
This program is similar to the FTC credit program described above;
however, companies classified as either FTC or SFTC are not eligible
for pre-export loans. Under the pre-export credit program, a company's
past export performance is considered in evaluating its eligibility for
loans and establishing the credit limit. Specifically, to be eligible
for a loan, a company must have exported more than $200,000 of goods in
the prior 12-month period. Like FTC loans, the Export Bank directly
extends to companies' pre-export loans, which are contingent upon
export commitment. The loans, whose interest rates are set by the
Export Bank, are denominated in either Turkish lira or foreign currency
and have a maximum maturity of 360 and 540 days, respectively. To
quality for a pre-export loan, along with necessary application
documents, a company must provide a bank letter of guarantee,
equivalent to the loan's principal and interest amount. During the POR,
BMB paid interest against pre-export loans.
Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that
these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of
section 771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429
(affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe
Memorandum at ``Pre-Export Credits.'' The loans constitute a financial
contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOT,
under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists under section
771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount of the difference between the
payments of interest that BMB made on the loans during the POR and the
payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans.
The program is also specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of
the Act because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export
performance.
Further, like the FTC loans, these loans are not tied to a
particular export destination. Therefore, we have treated this program
as an untied export loan program rendering it countervailable
regardless of whether the loans were used for exports to the United
States. See id.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as
the difference between the payments of interest that BMB made on its
pre-export loans during the POR and the payments the company would have
made on comparable commercial loans.\9\ In accordance with section
771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees
which BMB paid to commercial banks for the required letters of
guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total
export value for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the
net countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.05 percent ad
valorem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See ``Benchmark Interest Rates,''supra (discussing the
benchmark rates used in these preliminary results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Program Preliminarily Determined To Not Confer Countervailable
Benefits
A. Inward Processing Certificate Exemption
Under the Inward Processing Certificate (``IPC'') \10\ program,
companies are exempt from paying customs duties and value added taxes
(``VAT'') on raw materials and intermediate unfinished goods imported
to be used in the production of exported goods. Companies may choose
whether to be exempted from the applicable duties and taxes upon
importation (i.e., the Suspension System) or have the duties and taxes
reimbursed after exportation of the finished goods (i.e., the Drawback
System). Under the Suspension System, companies provide a letter of
guarantee that is returned to the companies upon fulfillment of the
export commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ During the POR, the IPC was implemented under Resolution
No. 2005/8391. A copy of this resolution was submitted by the GOT in
its July 5, 2007, Questionnaire Response as Exhibit 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To participate in this program, a company must hold an IPC, which
lists the amount of raw materials/intermediate unfinished goods to be
[[Page 62840]]
imported and the amount of product to be exported. To obtain an IPC, an
exporter must submit an application, which states the amount of
imported raw material required to produce the finished products and a
``letter of export commitment,'' which specifies that the importer of
materials will use the materials to produce exported goods. There are
two types of IPCs: a D-1 certificate and a D-3 certificate.\11\ During
the POR, Borusan utilized D-1 certificates associated with imports of
hot-rolled coil and zinc used in the production of carbon steel pipe
and tube. Borusan did not utilize any D-3 certificates during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For more information on D-3 certificates, see GOT's
Questionnaire Response, at 38-40 (July 5, 2007); 2004 Pipe
Memorandum, at ``Inward Processing Certificate Exemption,'' and
Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office
3, from Team regarding Verification of the Questionnaire Responses
submitted by the Government of the Republic of Turkey, at 9-12
(March 31, 2006) (the public version of the verification report is
available on the public file in the Department's Central Records
Unit, room B-099).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An IPC specifies the maximum quantity of inputs that can be
imported under the program. Under the IPC program, the value of
imported inputs may not exceed the value of the exported products.
Input/output usage rates listed on an IPC are set by the GOT working in
conjunction with Turkey's Exporter Associations, which are quasi-
governmental organizations, which represent different industries. The
input/output usage rates vary by product and industry and are
determined using data from capacity reports submitted by companies that
apply for IPCs. The input/output usage rates are subject to periodic
review and verification by the GOT. The GOT uses the input/output usage
rates to ensure that a company's expected export quantities are
sufficient to cover the quantity of inputs imported duty-free under the
program.\12\ Each time a company imports raw materials on a duty exempt
basis, the company must present the IPC to Turkish customs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For more information on how waste/usage rates are set by
the GOT, see 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at ``Inward Processing
Certificate Exemption''; and GOT's Questionnaire Response, at
Exhibit 5, pages 10-11 (July 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(ii), a benefit exists to the
extent that the exemption extends to inputs that are not consumed in
the production of the exported product, making normal allowances for
waste, or if the exemption covers charges other than imported charges
that are imposed on the input. In regard to the VAT exemption granted
under this program, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.517(a), in the case of the
exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists to the extent
that the Department determines that the amount exempted exceeds the
amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like
products when sold for domestic consumption.
In prior reviews, the Department found that, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.519(a)(4)(i), the GOT has a system in place to confirm which
inputs are consumed in the production of the exported product and in
what amounts, and that the system is reasonable for the purposes
intended. See 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary
results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at ``Inward
Processing Certificate Exemption.'' During the POR, under D-1
certificates, Borusan received duty and VAT exemptions on certain
imported inputs used in the production of steel pipes and tubes and not
duty or VAT refunds. There is no evidence on the record of this review
that indicates the amount of exempted inputs imported under the program
were excessive or that Borusan used the imported inputs for any other
product besides those exported. Further, there is no evidence on the
record of this review to warrant a reconsideration of the Department's
finding that the GOT's IPC monitoring system is reasonable.
Therefore, consistent with the 2005 Pipe Final and 2004 Pipe Final,
we preliminarily determine that the tax and duty exemptions, which
Borusan received on imported inputs under D-1 certificates of the IPC
program, did not confer countervailable benefits as Borusan consumed
the imported inputs in the production of the exported product, making
normal allowance for waste. We further preliminarily find that the VAT
exemption did not confer countervailable benefits on Borusan because
the exemption does not exceed the amount levied with respect to the
production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic
consumption. Further, because Borusan did not import any goods under a
D-3 certificate during the POR, we preliminarily determine that this
aspect of the IPC program was not used.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that
Borusan did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs
during the POR:
A. VAT Support Program (Incentive Premium on Domestically Obtained
Goods)\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Although we found this program to be terminated in Wire
Rod, residual payments for puchases made prior to the program's
termination were permitted. See Wire Rod Memorandum, at ``VAT
Support Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Pre-Shipment Export Credits
C. Post-Shipment Export Loans
D. Pre-Shipment Rediscount Loans
E. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit Facilities
F. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of Fixed Expenditures
G. Regional Subsidies.
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a
subsidy rate for Borusan for the period January 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine that the total net
countervailable subsidy rate is 0.23 percent ad valorem, which is de
minimis, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c).
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this review. If the final results
remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will
instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all
shipments of subject merchandise produced by Borusan entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006. The Department will also instruct CBP not to collect
cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of
the subject merchandise produced by Borusan, entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the
final results of this review.
CBP will continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed
companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate
applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that
will be applied to companies covered by this order but not examined in
this review, are those established in the most recently completed
administrative proceeding for each company. Those rates shall apply to
all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these
rates is requested.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
[[Page 62841]]
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary
results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must
be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited
to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than
five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise
specified by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties
who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the
argument: (1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested
to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case
and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may
request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing,
if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19 CFR
351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of
arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs.
This administrative review is issued and published in accordance
with section 751(a)(1), 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: November 1, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-21874 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
