Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 32303-32307 [E8-12777]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–423–809]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting an administrative review
of the countervailing duty order on
stainless steel plate in coils from
Belgium for the period January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006. We
preliminarily find that Ugine & ALZ
Belgium received countervailable
subsidies during the period of review. If
these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of this review, we will
instruct the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to assess countervailing
duties as detailed in the ‘‘Preliminary
Results of Review’’ section of this
notice. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of
this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Neubacher or Alicia Winston,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5823 and (202)
482–1785, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Background
On May 11, 1999, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a countervailing duty order
on stainless steel plate in coils (‘‘SSPC’’)
from Belgium. See Notice of Amended
Final Determinations: Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Belgium and South
Africa; and Notice of Countervailing
Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils from Belgium, Italy and South
Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999)
(‘‘CVD Order’’). On March 11, 2003, as
a result of litigation, the Department
published an amended countervailing
duty order on stainless steel plate in
coils from Belgium. See Notice of
Amended Countervailing Duty Orders;
Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
From Belgium, Italy, and South Africa,
68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003)
(‘‘Amended CVD Order’’). On May 1,
2007, the Department published a notice
of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review’’ for this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
countervailing duty order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 23796,
23797 (May 1, 2007). On May 31, 2007,
we received a request for review from
U&A.1 In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i) (2004), we published a
notice of initiation of the review on June
29, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part
and Deferral of Administrative Review,
72 FR 35690, 35693 (June 29, 2007)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
On July 13, 2007, we issued
countervailing duty questionnaires to
the Government of Belgium (‘‘GOB’’),
the Commission of the European Union
(‘‘EC’’), and U&A. We received
responses to these questionnaires on
September 21, and 24, 2007. On April
3, 2008, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to the GOB and U&A. We
issued a further supplemental
questionnaire to U&A on April 24, 2008.
We received a response from U&A for
both supplemental questionnaires on
April 28, 2008. The GOB requested an
extension to file its supplemental
response, which we granted. The GOB,
however, did not respond to the
supplemental questionnaire by the
extended deadline. We issued
additional supplemental questionnaires
to U&A on May 1, and 8, 2008, and
received responses to our supplemental
questionnaires on May 8, 13, 2008, and
16, 2008.
On May 20, 2008, Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation; North American Stainless;
United Auto Workers Local 3303;
Zanesville Arco Independent
Organization; and the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC
(collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’)
submitted comments for consideration
in the preliminary results. We received
a response from U&A to petitioners’ prepreliminary comments on May 22, 2008.
On January 9, 2008, we published a
postponement of the preliminary results
in this review until May 30, 2008. See
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 1599
(January 9, 2008).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are imports of certain stainless steel
plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent
1On
June 20, 2007, Ugine & ALZ Belgium
(‘‘U&A’’) provided a letter to the Department stating
that the company was formerly ALZ N.V. (‘‘ALZ’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32303
or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or
more of chromium, with or without
other elements. The subject plate
products are flat-rolled products, 254
mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or
more in thickness, in coils, and
annealed or otherwise heat treated and
pickled or otherwise descaled. The
subject plate may also be further
processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished,
etc.) provided that it maintains the
specified dimensions of plate following
such processing. Excluded from the
scope of this order are the following: (1)
Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not
annealed or otherwise heat treated and
pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet
and strip, and (4) flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30,
7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05,
7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20,
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25,
7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50,
7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55,
7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65,
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70,
7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80,
7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20,
7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00,
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80,
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60,
7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
scope of this order remains dispositive.
This scope language reflects the
March 11, 2003, amendment of the
antidumping and countervailing duty
orders and suspension of liquidation
which the Department implemented in
accordance with the Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) decision in
Allegheny Ludlum v. United States, Slip
Op. 02–147 (Dec. 12, 2002). See, also,
Notice of Amended Antidumping
Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils from Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and
Taiwan, 68 FR 11520 (March 11, 2003)
and Amended CVD Order.
Period of Review
The period for which we are
measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of
review (‘‘POR’’), is January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
32304
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act,
provide that the Department shall apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia,
necessary information is not on the
record or an interested party or any
other person: (A) Withholds information
that has been requested; (B) fails to
provide information within the
deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the
Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D) provides information that cannot be
verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information if
it can do so without undue difficulties.
In this case, the Department sent a
supplemental questionnaire to the GOB
seeking confirmation that U&A did not
receive benefits during the 15-year
average useful life of renewable physical
assets (‘‘AUL’’) for programs under the
program headings ‘‘Industrial
Reconversion Zones;’’ ‘‘Regional
Subsidies under the Economic
Expansion Law of 1970 (GOB)’’ and
‘‘Regional Subsidies under the
Economic Expansion Law of 1970
(Government of Flanders (‘‘GOF’’))’’.
The GOB, through U&A, requested an
extension to respond to the
supplemental questionnaire, which was
granted until April 28, 2008. The GOB
did not provide a response to the
supplemental questionnaire by this
deadline, but we received an extension
request on May 6, 2008. The Department
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
granted the GOB’s request, but the GOB
did not file a response by the May 19,
2008, deadline. On May 23, 2008, the
Department received a letter from the
GOB stating it was still working on
providing a response to the
supplemental questions and would
submit an answer as soon as it becomes
available.
Thus, in reaching our finding for the
preliminary results, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we are
relying on facts otherwise available to
determine the countervailable subsidy
conferred by the GOB under the
‘‘Industrial Reconversion Zones’’ and
both ‘‘Economic Expansion Law of
1970’’ programs.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Section 776(b)
of the Act also authorizes the
Department to use as adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived
from the petition, the final
determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
‘‘{i}nformation derived from the
petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA)
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Session (1994) at 870.
Corroborate means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative
value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. The SAA
emphasizes, however, that the
Department need not prove that the
selected facts available are the best
alternative information. See SAA at 869.
The Department states in Certain Inshell Roasted Pistachios from the
Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results
of Countervailing Duty New Shipper
Review, 73 FR 9993 (February 25, 2008),
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2
(‘‘Pistachios from Iran 2008’’), that
where the foreign government fails to
adequately respond to the Department’s
questionnaires, the Department’s
practice is to apply adverse inferences
and assume the alleged subsidy
programs constitute a financial
contribution and are specific within the
meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and
771(5A) of the Act, respectively.
However, if information on the record
indicates that the respondent did not
use the program, the Department will
find the program not used, regardless of
whether the foreign government
participated to the best of its ability.
In its September 24, 2007,
questionnaire response, the GOB and
U&A responded fully to the
Department’s questions regarding
potential subsidy programs during the
POR. In a subsequent supplemental
questionnaire to the GOB, the
Department asked the GOB to confirm
that U&A did not receive benefits during
the AUL period for programs under the
‘‘Industrial Reconversion Zones’’ and
both ‘‘Economic Expansion Law of
1970’’ programs. Upon examination of
the programs listed under each of these
headings, we note that several of the
programs described are recurring
subsidy programs that are associated
with tax programs (Industrial
Reconversion Zones: Albufin and
Regional Subsidies under the Economic
Expansion Law of 1970 (GOB): Real
Estate Tax Exemption and Accelerated
Depreciation). As such, we have
examined U&A’s responses on these
programs and find that statements by
U&A in its questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaire responses
regarding the use of these programs
during the POR, as well as
documentation (e.g., financial
statements and U&A’s 2006 tax return)
on the record, support the company’s
assertion that it did not receive benefits
under these recurring programs in 2006.
Although the GOB did not respond to
the Department’s questions regarding
these programs, the information on the
record supports U&A’s assertion that it
did not use these programs during the
POR. Therefore, we preliminarily find
that U&A did not receive benefits under
these programs according to section
771(5)(E) of the Act.
For the programs under the Regional
Subsidies under the 1970 Law (GOF)
(Corporate Income Tax Exemption,
Capital Registration Tax Exemption
Government Loan Guarantees, and 1993
Loan Grant programs), the Department
found these programs to be not used by
U&A in the investigation and first
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
administrative review (the only
administrative review for which a
request for a review was made). We note
that no new information on the record
contradicts our previous finding of nonuse for the above GOF programs.
Moreover, U&A’s submitted
documentation (2006 financial
statements and 2006 tax returns)
provides additional support that the
recurring subsidy programs within this
group continue to be not used.
Therefore, consistent with our previous
findings of non-use and no new
information on the record that U&A
started to use these programs, we
preliminarily continue to find the
programs under the Regional Subsidies
under the 1970 Law (GOF) not used.
The remaining program under these
headings involves one non-recurring
program (Industrial Reconversion
Zones: Alfin). The Department found
this program countervailable during the
investigation and stated that the benefit
found had been fully allocated by the
end of the first administrative review. In
the GOB’s and U&A’s responses to the
Department regarding this program,
both parties stated that the benefit the
Department found countervailable had
been fully allocated out in the first
administrative review POR, that the
program had not changed, and that no
benefits were provided/received in the
POR. The GOB and U&A, however, did
not address whether benefits were
conferred upon U&A during the full
AUL period. In its supplemental
questionnaire to the GOB, the
Department attempted to clarify those
statements and confirm that no benefits
were provided to U&A for the full AUL
period. The GOB did not respond to the
supplemental questionnaire, and as
stated above, U&A only provided an
incomplete answer in its questionnaire
response. Thus, the Department has no
information on the record from which to
analyze whether the GOB provided
additional benefits to U&A under this
program over the full AUL period.
In selecting from among the facts
available for U&A, the Department has
determined that an adverse inference is
warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act. The Department preliminarily
determines that records relating to
subsidy distribution by the GOB are
records that are, or should be kept by
both the GOB and U&A. Further, by
failing to submit a response to the
Department’s supplemental CVD
questionnaire, we preliminarily
determine that the GOB did not
cooperate to the best of its ability in
providing pertinent information on nonrecurring programs over the full AUL
period. Further, U&A failed to provide
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
a complete response to the Department’s
questionnaire addressing the full AUL
period. As no information on the record
exists for the program beyond the
original countervailable benefit and
POR of this review, and neither the GOB
nor U&A provided an adequate response
for this program, we find, as adverse
facts available, that the GOB conferred
a benefit to U&A under the Industrial
Reconversion Zones: Alfin program,
during the AUL period, as per section
771(5)(E) of the Act. We note that
supplemental questions regarding the
use of the above programs during the
full AUL period were directed only at
the GOB. Therefore, we will issue an
additional supplemental questionnaire
to U&A that will request supporting
documentation regarding the usage of
the above programs during the full AUL
period.
Selection of the Partial Adverse Facts
Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the
Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any information placed on the
record. It is the Department’s practice to
select, as AFA, the highest calculated
rate in any segment of the proceeding.
See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted
Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of
Iran: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
66165 (November 13, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at ‘‘Analysis of
Programs.’’ Therefore, the Department
has preliminarily assigned the first
administrative review rate of 0.17% (the
highest calculated rate for the program
during any previous segment) subsidy
rate to the ‘‘Industrial Reconversion
Zones: Alfin’’ program. In order 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. With regard to the
reliability aspect of corroboration,
unlike other types of information, such
as publicly available data on the
national inflation rate of a given country
or national average interest rates, there
typically are no independent sources for
data on company-specific benefits
resulting from countervailable subsidy
programs. The only source for such
information normally is administrative
determinations.
In the instant case, no evidence has
been presented or obtained which
contradicts the reliability of the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32305
evidence relied upon in previous
segments of this proceeding.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, 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
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996). In the instant case,
no evidence has been presented or
obtained which contradicts the
relevance of the benefit data relied upon
in previous segments of this proceeding.
Thus, in the instant case, the
Department finds that the information
used has been corroborated to the extent
practicable.
Changes in Ownership
Effective June 30, 2003, the
Department adopted a new methodology
for analyzing privatizations in the
countervailing duty context. See Notice
of Final Modification of Agency Practice
Under Section 123 of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125
(June 23, 2003) (‘‘Modification Notice’’).
The Department’s new methodology is
based on a rebuttable ‘‘baseline’’
presumption that non-recurring,
allocable subsidies continue to benefit
the subsidy recipient throughout the
allocation period (which normally
corresponds to the AUL of the
recipient’s assets). Id., at 37127.
However, an interested party may rebut
this baseline presumption by
demonstrating that, during the
allocation period, a change in
ownership occurred in which the former
owner sold all or substantially all of a
company or its assets, retaining no
control of the company or its assets, and
that the sale was an arm’s-length
transaction for fair market value. Id.
U&A’s ownership changed during the
AUL period as a result of mergers and
ownership changes. However, during
the current administrative review, U&A
has not attempted to rebut the
Department’s baseline presumption that
the non-recurring, allocable subsidies
received prior to any changes in
ownership continue to benefit the
company throughout the allocation
period. See U&A’s September 24, 2007,
questionnaire response at pages 12–13.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Responding Producers
In earlier proceedings, we found that
ALZ N.V.’s (‘‘ALZ’s’’) parent company,
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32306
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Sidmar N.V. (‘‘Sidmar’’), owned either
directly or indirectly 100 percent of
ALZ’s voting shares and was the overall
majority shareholder of U&A Belgium.
See Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination; Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR
15567 (March 31, 1999) (‘‘SSPC from
Belgium Investigation’’); Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 45007
(August 27, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum
(‘‘SSPC from Belgium First Review’’).
Therefore, in accordance with section
351.525(a)(6)(iii) of the Department’s
regulations, because ALZ was a fully
consolidated subsidiary of Sidmar, any
untied subsidies provided to Sidmar are
attributable to ALZ.
In the current review, U&A provided
evidence on the record that it is wholly
owned by Arcelor and that Sidmar
transferred shares to Arcelor pursuant to
the 2002 merger of Sidmar’s parent,
Arbed, with Aceralia and Usinor.
Certain details of this transfer are
proprietary in nature and are discussed
in U&A’s Calculation Memo. See
Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach,
Director, regarding ‘‘Calculations for the
Preliminary Results for U&A Belguim’’
(May 30, 2008) (‘‘U&A’s Calculation
Memo’’). Based on the information
provided, we preliminary find it
appropriate to attribute any nonrecurring subsidy benefits provided to
Sidmar and that are still outstanding
during the POR to U&A’s sales.
Allocation Period
In SSPC from Belgium Investigation,
in accordance with a CIT decision, we
calculated company-specific allocation
periods for non-recurring subsidies
using company-specific AUL data. See
British Steel plc v. United States, 929 F.
Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996). We
determined that the AUL for ALZ was
15 years, and that the AUL for Sidmar
was 19 years. See SSPC from Belgium,
64 FR at 15568.
In the first administrative review, the
Department adopted new CVD
regulations, which were applicable to
the review, and determined to use a 15year AUL for the review including any
new subsidies received by Sidmar. See
SSPC from Belgium First Review, and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2. However,
with respect to non-recurring subsidies
received prior to the first administrative
review which had already been
countervailed and allocated based on an
allocation period established in SSPC
from Belgium Investigation, we
continued to allocate those non-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
recurring subsidies over 19 years for
Sidmar. As we noted at the time, this
methodology was consistent with our
approach in Certain Carbon Steel
Products from Sweden; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997) and
Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of
Third Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 11269
(February 23, 2001) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
‘‘Allocation Period.’’ See SSPC from
Belgium First Review, and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
During the current administrative
review, U&A has not commented on the
Department’s use of the 15-year AUL
period or the use of a 19-year AUL for
Sidmar’s non-recurring subsidies
received by the company in the
investigation. For the preliminary
results, we will continue to employ our
previous methodology and use the 15year AUL for U&A and allocate any nonrecurring subsidies received by Sidmar
in the investigation over the 19-year
AUL.
Benchmarks for Discount Rate
Because Sidmar did not obtain longterm commercial loans in the year in
which the grant was received, as
described in section 351.505(a)(2)(iii),
we used a national average rate for longterm, fixed-rate debt as the discount
rate. See section 351.505(a)(3)(ii) of the
Department’s regulations.
Analysis of Programs
I. Program Previously Determined To
Confer Subsidies
We examined the following program
determined to confer subsidies in the
investigation and the first
administrative review and preliminarily
find that U&A continued to receive
benefits under this program during the
POR.
SidInvest
SidInvest was incorporated on August
31, 1982, as a holding company jointly
owned by Sidmar and the Societe
Nationale d’Investissement, S.A.
(‘‘SNI’’) (a government financing
agency). SidInvest was given drawing
rights on SNI to finance specific
projects. The drawing rights took the
form of conditional refundable advances
(‘‘CRAs’’), which were interest-free, but
repayable to SNI based on a company’s
profitability. See SSPC From Belgium
Investigation, 64 FR at 15572.
SidInvest made periodic repayments
of the CRAs it had drawn from SNI.
However, in 1987, the GOB moved to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accelerate the repayment of the CRAs.
Later, in July 1988, an agreement was
reached for the government agency
Nationale Maatschappig voor de
Herstructurering van de Nationale
Sectoren (‘‘NMNS’’) to become a
shareholder in SidInvest by contributing
the CRAs owed to the government by
SidInvest in exchange for SidInvest
stock. The Sidmar Group then
repurchased the SidInvest shares
obtained by NMNS. Id.
We determined that this program
conferred a countervailable subsidy
within the meaning of section 771(5) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). Id. This program provided a
financial contribution as described in
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Id.
Moreover, because the right to establish
‘‘Invests’’ (and, consequently, any
forgiveness of loans given to the Invests)
was limited to the five national sectors,
we determined that the program was
specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of
the Act. Id. In this administrative
review, no new information has been
placed on the record which would
warrant reconsideration of this
determination.
To measure the benefit arising from
the events of July 29, 1988, we have
deducted from SidInvest’s outstanding
indebtedness the cash received by the
GOB. We have treated the remainder as
a grant and allocated the benefit over
Sidmar’s 19-year AUL. We divided the
total benefit attributable to 2006 by U&A
Belgium’s total sales during 2006. On
this basis, we preliminarily determine
the countervailable subsidy for 2006 to
be 0.31 percent ad valorem.
Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin
As noted in the ‘‘Use of Facts
Otherwise Available ’’section above, we
preliminarily find U&A to have
benefitted from the Industrial
Reconversion Zones: Alfin program
during the POR in the amount of 0.17
percent.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined
To Be Not Used
We examined the following programs
and preliminarily determine that U&A
did not apply for or receive benefits
under these programs during the POR:
A. Government of Belgium Programs
1. Subsidies Provided to Sidmar That
Are Potentially Attributable to ALZ:
a. Water Purification Grants
2. Societe Nationale pour la
Reconstruction des Secteurs
Nationaux
3. Regional subsidies under the 1970
Law Investment and Interest
Subsidies
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
4. Regional Subsidies under the
Economic Expansion Law of 1970
a. Expansion Real Estate Tax
Exemption
b. Accelerated Depreciation
5. Reduced Social Security
Contributions Pursuant to the
Maribel Scheme (Article 35 of the
Law of June 29, 1981)
6. 1987 ALZ Common Share
Transaction Between the GOB and
Sidmar (also identified as 1985 ALZ
Share Subscriptions and
Subsequent Transactions in the
CVD Order)
7. Industrial Reconversion Zones:
a. Albufin
8. Belgian Industrial Finance Company
(‘‘Belfin’’) Loans
9. Societe Nationale de Credite a
l’Industrie (‘‘SNCI’’) Loans
10. Conversion of Sidmar’s Debt to
Equity (OCPC-to-PB) in 1985
B. Government of Flanders Programs
1. Regional subsidies under the 1970
Law
a. Corporate Income Tax Exemption
b. Capital Registration Tax Exemption
c. Government Loan Guarantees
d. 1993 Expansion Grant
2. Special Depreciation Allowance
3. Preferential Short-Term Export Credit
4. Interest Rate Rebates
C. Programs of the European
Commission
1. ECSC Article 54 Loans and Interest
Rebates
2. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans,
Interest Rebates and Redeployment
Aid
3. European Social Fund Grants
4. European Regional Development
Fund Grants
5. Resider II Program
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
III. Issues for Which More Information Is
Required
On May 1, 2008, the Department
sought information from U&A
concerning amounts appearing in its
2005 and 2006 financial statements.
U&A submitted some requested
information on May 8, 2008, and May
13, 2008. In addition, in its May 22,
2008, response to petitioners’ prepreliminary comments, U&A stated that
it had inadvertently not included all of
its divisions and cross-owned
companies in its submitted total sales
and export data. After reviewing the
provided documentation, we have
determined that we do not have
sufficient information at this time to
make a finding on these amounts or the
revised sales value and export data.
Therefore, we intend to seek further
information on these amounts and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
revised data and to issue an interim
analysis describing our preliminary
findings with respect to these items
before the final results so that parties
will have the opportunity to comment.
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for U&A, the
only producer/exporter subject to this
administrative review. For the period
January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2006, we preliminarily determine the
net subsidy rate for U&A to be 0.48
percent ad valorem. This rate is less
than 0.5 percent. Consequently, if these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this review, the
Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate shipments of SSPC by U&A2
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption from January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006, without
regard to countervailing duties. See 19
CFR 351.106(c)(1). These instructions
will be issued fifteen days after
publication of the final results of this
review.
The final results of this review shall
be the basis for future deposits of
estimated duties. If the cash deposit rate
calculated in the final results is zero or
de minimis, no cash deposit will be
required. The cash deposit requirement,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
We will instruct CBP to continue to
collect cash deposits for non-reviewed
companies covered by this order at the
most recent company-specific rate
applicable to the company. Accordingly,
the cash deposit rate that will be
applied to non-reviewed companies
covered by this order will be the rate for
that company established in the
investigation or most recent
administrative review. See CVD Order.
The ‘‘all others’’ rate shall apply to all
non-reviewed companies that have not
received an individual rate.
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit written
arguments in case briefs within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice.
2 During the current review U&A has placed the
following information on the record. In 2002, ALZ
in Belgium merged with Ugine, a French producer
of stainless steel sheet and strip, to become U&A.
The Department has reviewed the information
provided by U&A with regard to the merger and
evaluated the company and its affiliates for receipt
of countervailable subsidies. In addition, we have
reviewed entry data provided by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to confirm that U&A is
the only manufacturer of subject merchandise
exported from Belgium during the period of review.
Therefore, for countervailing duty review purposes,
we will consider ALZ to be U&A for cash deposit
and assessment purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32307
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, may be filed not later than five
days after the date of filing the case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit briefs in this proceeding
should provide a summary of the
arguments not to exceed five pages and
a table of statutes, regulations, and cases
cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and
(d)(2). Copies of case briefs and rebuttal
briefs must be served on interested
parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f).
Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Unless otherwise specified,
the hearing, if requested, will be held
two days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19
CFR 351.310(d)(1).
The Department will publish a notice
of the final results of this administrative
review within 120 days from the
publication of these preliminary results.
See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–12777 Filed 6–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XI31
Marine Mammals; File Nos. 715–1706
and 545–1761
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; receipt of applications
for amendments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
Fred Sharpe, Ph.D., Alaska Whale
Foundation, 4739 University Way NE,
#1239, Seattle, Washington 98105 has
requested an amendment to scientific
research Permit No. 751–1706–00; and
North Gulf Oceanic Society (Craig O.
Matkin, Principal Investigator), 2030
Mary Allen Avenue, Homer, AK 99603
has requested an amendment to Permit
No. 545–1761–00.
DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail
comments must be received on or before
July 7, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 110 (Friday, June 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32303-32307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12777]
[[Page 32303]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-423-809]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in
coils from Belgium for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2006. We preliminarily find that Ugine & ALZ Belgium received
countervailable subsidies during the period of review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we
will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess
countervailing duties as detailed in the ``Preliminary Results of
Review'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results. See the ``Public Comment''
section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Neubacher or Alicia Winston, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5823 and (202) 482-1785, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 11, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published a countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in coils
(``SSPC'') from Belgium. See Notice of Amended Final Determinations:
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium and South Africa; and
Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Belgium, Italy and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999) (``CVD
Order''). On March 11, 2003, as a result of litigation, the Department
published an amended countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate
in coils from Belgium. See Notice of Amended Countervailing Duty
Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, and
South Africa, 68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003) (``Amended CVD Order''). On
May 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to
Request Administrative Review'' for this countervailing duty order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR
23796, 23797 (May 1, 2007). On May 31, 2007, we received a request for
review from U&A.\1\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i) (2004),
we published a notice of initiation of the review on June 29, 2007. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative
Review, 72 FR 35690, 35693 (June 29, 2007) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\On June 20, 2007, Ugine & ALZ Belgium (``U&A'') provided a
letter to the Department stating that the company was formerly ALZ
N.V. (``ALZ'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 2007, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to
the Government of Belgium (``GOB''), the Commission of the European
Union (``EC''), and U&A. We received responses to these questionnaires
on September 21, and 24, 2007. On April 3, 2008, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to the GOB and U&A. We issued a further supplemental
questionnaire to U&A on April 24, 2008. We received a response from U&A
for both supplemental questionnaires on April 28, 2008. The GOB
requested an extension to file its supplemental response, which we
granted. The GOB, however, did not respond to the supplemental
questionnaire by the extended deadline. We issued additional
supplemental questionnaires to U&A on May 1, and 8, 2008, and received
responses to our supplemental questionnaires on May 8, 13, 2008, and
16, 2008.
On May 20, 2008, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation; North American
Stainless; United Auto Workers Local 3303; Zanesville Arco Independent
Organization; and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC
(collectively, ``the petitioners'') submitted comments for
consideration in the preliminary results. We received a response from
U&A to petitioners' pre-preliminary comments on May 22, 2008.
On January 9, 2008, we published a postponement of the preliminary
results in this review until May 30, 2008. See Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils from Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 1599 (January 9,
2008).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are imports of certain stainless
steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of
chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products
are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more
in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and
pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further
processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it
maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing.
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Plate not
in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and
pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05,
7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.25,
7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.55,
7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.70,
7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
Department's written description of the scope of this order remains
dispositive.
This scope language reflects the March 11, 2003, amendment of the
antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension of
liquidation which the Department implemented in accordance with the
Court of International Trade (``CIT'') decision in Allegheny Ludlum v.
United States, Slip Op. 02-147 (Dec. 12, 2002). See, also, Notice of
Amended Antidumping Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and
Taiwan, 68 FR 11520 (March 11, 2003) and Amended CVD Order.
Period of Review
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period
of review (``POR''), is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.
[[Page 32304]]
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other
person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
In this case, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to
the GOB seeking confirmation that U&A did not receive benefits during
the 15-year average useful life of renewable physical assets (``AUL'')
for programs under the program headings ``Industrial Reconversion
Zones;'' ``Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 1970
(GOB)'' and ``Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of
1970 (Government of Flanders (``GOF''))''. The GOB, through U&A,
requested an extension to respond to the supplemental questionnaire,
which was granted until April 28, 2008. The GOB did not provide a
response to the supplemental questionnaire by this deadline, but we
received an extension request on May 6, 2008. The Department granted
the GOB's request, but the GOB did not file a response by the May 19,
2008, deadline. On May 23, 2008, the Department received a letter from
the GOB stating it was still working on providing a response to the
supplemental questions and would submit an answer as soon as it becomes
available.
Thus, in reaching our finding for the preliminary results, pursuant
to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we are relying on facts
otherwise available to determine the countervailable subsidy conferred
by the GOB under the ``Industrial Reconversion Zones'' and both
``Economic Expansion Law of 1970'' programs.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA)
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Session (1994) at 870. Corroborate means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information,
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability
and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes,
however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts
available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869.
The Department states in Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from
the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty New
Shipper Review, 73 FR 9993 (February 25, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (``Pistachios from Iran 2008''),
that where the foreign government fails to adequately respond to the
Department's questionnaires, the Department's practice is to apply
adverse inferences and assume the alleged subsidy programs constitute a
financial contribution and are specific within the meaning of sections
771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. However, if information
on the record indicates that the respondent did not use the program,
the Department will find the program not used, regardless of whether
the foreign government participated to the best of its ability.
In its September 24, 2007, questionnaire response, the GOB and U&A
responded fully to the Department's questions regarding potential
subsidy programs during the POR. In a subsequent supplemental
questionnaire to the GOB, the Department asked the GOB to confirm that
U&A did not receive benefits during the AUL period for programs under
the ``Industrial Reconversion Zones'' and both ``Economic Expansion Law
of 1970'' programs. Upon examination of the programs listed under each
of these headings, we note that several of the programs described are
recurring subsidy programs that are associated with tax programs
(Industrial Reconversion Zones: Albufin and Regional Subsidies under
the Economic Expansion Law of 1970 (GOB): Real Estate Tax Exemption and
Accelerated Depreciation). As such, we have examined U&A's responses on
these programs and find that statements by U&A in its questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaire responses regarding the use of these
programs during the POR, as well as documentation (e.g., financial
statements and U&A's 2006 tax return) on the record, support the
company's assertion that it did not receive benefits under these
recurring programs in 2006. Although the GOB did not respond to the
Department's questions regarding these programs, the information on the
record supports U&A's assertion that it did not use these programs
during the POR. Therefore, we preliminarily find that U&A did not
receive benefits under these programs according to section 771(5)(E) of
the Act.
For the programs under the Regional Subsidies under the 1970 Law
(GOF) (Corporate Income Tax Exemption, Capital Registration Tax
Exemption Government Loan Guarantees, and 1993 Loan Grant programs),
the Department found these programs to be not used by U&A in the
investigation and first
[[Page 32305]]
administrative review (the only administrative review for which a
request for a review was made). We note that no new information on the
record contradicts our previous finding of non-use for the above GOF
programs. Moreover, U&A's submitted documentation (2006 financial
statements and 2006 tax returns) provides additional support that the
recurring subsidy programs within this group continue to be not used.
Therefore, consistent with our previous findings of non-use and no new
information on the record that U&A started to use these programs, we
preliminarily continue to find the programs under the Regional
Subsidies under the 1970 Law (GOF) not used.
The remaining program under these headings involves one non-
recurring program (Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin). The
Department found this program countervailable during the investigation
and stated that the benefit found had been fully allocated by the end
of the first administrative review. In the GOB's and U&A's responses to
the Department regarding this program, both parties stated that the
benefit the Department found countervailable had been fully allocated
out in the first administrative review POR, that the program had not
changed, and that no benefits were provided/received in the POR. The
GOB and U&A, however, did not address whether benefits were conferred
upon U&A during the full AUL period. In its supplemental questionnaire
to the GOB, the Department attempted to clarify those statements and
confirm that no benefits were provided to U&A for the full AUL period.
The GOB did not respond to the supplemental questionnaire, and as
stated above, U&A only provided an incomplete answer in its
questionnaire response. Thus, the Department has no information on the
record from which to analyze whether the GOB provided additional
benefits to U&A under this program over the full AUL period.
In selecting from among the facts available for U&A, the Department
has determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act. The Department preliminarily determines that
records relating to subsidy distribution by the GOB are records that
are, or should be kept by both the GOB and U&A. Further, by failing to
submit a response to the Department's supplemental CVD questionnaire,
we preliminarily determine that the GOB did not cooperate to the best
of its ability in providing pertinent information on non-recurring
programs over the full AUL period. Further, U&A failed to provide a
complete response to the Department's questionnaire addressing the full
AUL period. As no information on the record exists for the program
beyond the original countervailable benefit and POR of this review, and
neither the GOB nor U&A provided an adequate response for this program,
we find, as adverse facts available, that the GOB conferred a benefit
to U&A under the Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin program, during
the AUL period, as per section 771(5)(E) of the Act. We note that
supplemental questions regarding the use of the above programs during
the full AUL period were directed only at the GOB. Therefore, we will
issue an additional supplemental questionnaire to U&A that will request
supporting documentation regarding the usage of the above programs
during the full AUL period.
Selection of the Partial Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to
select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the
proceeding. See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the
Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of
Programs.'' Therefore, the Department has preliminarily assigned the
first administrative review rate of 0.17% (the highest calculated rate
for the program during any previous segment) subsidy rate to the
``Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin'' program. In order 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. With regard to the reliability aspect of
corroboration, unlike other types of information, such as publicly
available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or
national average interest rates, there typically are no independent
sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from
countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information
normally is administrative determinations.
In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained
which contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon in
previous segments of this proceeding.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 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 Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant
case, no evidence has been presented or obtained which contradicts the
relevance of the benefit data relied upon in previous segments of this
proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the
information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable.
Changes in Ownership
Effective June 30, 2003, the Department adopted a new methodology
for analyzing privatizations in the countervailing duty context. See
Notice of Final Modification of Agency Practice Under Section 123 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 2003)
(``Modification Notice''). The Department's new methodology is based on
a rebuttable ``baseline'' presumption that non-recurring, allocable
subsidies continue to benefit the subsidy recipient throughout the
allocation period (which normally corresponds to the AUL of the
recipient's assets). Id., at 37127. However, an interested party may
rebut this baseline presumption by demonstrating that, during the
allocation period, a change in ownership occurred in which the former
owner sold all or substantially all of a company or its assets,
retaining no control of the company or its assets, and that the sale
was an arm's-length transaction for fair market value. Id.
U&A's ownership changed during the AUL period as a result of
mergers and ownership changes. However, during the current
administrative review, U&A has not attempted to rebut the Department's
baseline presumption that the non-recurring, allocable subsidies
received prior to any changes in ownership continue to benefit the
company throughout the allocation period. See U&A's September 24, 2007,
questionnaire response at pages 12-13.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Responding Producers
In earlier proceedings, we found that ALZ N.V.'s (``ALZ's'') parent
company,
[[Page 32306]]
Sidmar N.V. (``Sidmar''), owned either directly or indirectly 100
percent of ALZ's voting shares and was the overall majority shareholder
of U&A Belgium. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination; Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15567
(March 31, 1999) (``SSPC from Belgium Investigation''); Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 45007 (August 27, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (``SSPC from Belgium First Review'').
Therefore, in accordance with section 351.525(a)(6)(iii) of the
Department's regulations, because ALZ was a fully consolidated
subsidiary of Sidmar, any untied subsidies provided to Sidmar are
attributable to ALZ.
In the current review, U&A provided evidence on the record that it
is wholly owned by Arcelor and that Sidmar transferred shares to
Arcelor pursuant to the 2002 merger of Sidmar's parent, Arbed, with
Aceralia and Usinor. Certain details of this transfer are proprietary
in nature and are discussed in U&A's Calculation Memo. See Memorandum
to Susan Kuhbach, Director, regarding ``Calculations for the
Preliminary Results for U&A Belguim'' (May 30, 2008) (``U&A's
Calculation Memo''). Based on the information provided, we preliminary
find it appropriate to attribute any non-recurring subsidy benefits
provided to Sidmar and that are still outstanding during the POR to
U&A's sales.
Allocation Period
In SSPC from Belgium Investigation, in accordance with a CIT
decision, we calculated company-specific allocation periods for non-
recurring subsidies using company-specific AUL data. See British Steel
plc v. United States, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996). We determined
that the AUL for ALZ was 15 years, and that the AUL for Sidmar was 19
years. See SSPC from Belgium, 64 FR at 15568.
In the first administrative review, the Department adopted new CVD
regulations, which were applicable to the review, and determined to use
a 15-year AUL for the review including any new subsidies received by
Sidmar. See SSPC from Belgium First Review, and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. However, with respect to non-
recurring subsidies received prior to the first administrative review
which had already been countervailed and allocated based on an
allocation period established in SSPC from Belgium Investigation, we
continued to allocate those non-recurring subsidies over 19 years for
Sidmar. As we noted at the time, this methodology was consistent with
our approach in Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16549
(April 7, 1997) and Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of Third
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 11269 (February 23,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Allocation
Period.'' See SSPC from Belgium First Review, and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
During the current administrative review, U&A has not commented on
the Department's use of the 15-year AUL period or the use of a 19-year
AUL for Sidmar's non-recurring subsidies received by the company in the
investigation. For the preliminary results, we will continue to employ
our previous methodology and use the 15-year AUL for U&A and allocate
any non-recurring subsidies received by Sidmar in the investigation
over the 19-year AUL.
Benchmarks for Discount Rate
Because Sidmar did not obtain long-term commercial loans in the
year in which the grant was received, as described in section
351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used a national average rate for long-term,
fixed-rate debt as the discount rate. See section 351.505(a)(3)(ii) of
the Department's regulations.
Analysis of Programs
I. Program Previously Determined To Confer Subsidies
We examined the following program determined to confer subsidies in
the investigation and the first administrative review and preliminarily
find that U&A continued to receive benefits under this program during
the POR.
SidInvest
SidInvest was incorporated on August 31, 1982, as a holding company
jointly owned by Sidmar and the Societe Nationale d'Investissement,
S.A. (``SNI'') (a government financing agency). SidInvest was given
drawing rights on SNI to finance specific projects. The drawing rights
took the form of conditional refundable advances (``CRAs''), which were
interest-free, but repayable to SNI based on a company's profitability.
See SSPC From Belgium Investigation, 64 FR at 15572.
SidInvest made periodic repayments of the CRAs it had drawn from
SNI. However, in 1987, the GOB moved to accelerate the repayment of the
CRAs. Later, in July 1988, an agreement was reached for the government
agency Nationale Maatschappig voor de Herstructurering van de Nationale
Sectoren (``NMNS'') to become a shareholder in SidInvest by
contributing the CRAs owed to the government by SidInvest in exchange
for SidInvest stock. The Sidmar Group then repurchased the SidInvest
shares obtained by NMNS. Id.
We determined that this program conferred a countervailable subsidy
within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''). Id. This program provided a financial
contribution as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Id.
Moreover, because the right to establish ``Invests'' (and,
consequently, any forgiveness of loans given to the Invests) was
limited to the five national sectors, we determined that the program
was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. In this
administrative review, no new information has been placed on the record
which would warrant reconsideration of this determination.
To measure the benefit arising from the events of July 29, 1988, we
have deducted from SidInvest's outstanding indebtedness the cash
received by the GOB. We have treated the remainder as a grant and
allocated the benefit over Sidmar's 19-year AUL. We divided the total
benefit attributable to 2006 by U&A Belgium's total sales during 2006.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy
for 2006 to be 0.31 percent ad valorem.
Industrial Reconversion Zones: Alfin
As noted in the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available ''section above,
we preliminarily find U&A to have benefitted from the Industrial
Reconversion Zones: Alfin program during the POR in the amount of 0.17
percent.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that
U&A did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during
the POR:
A. Government of Belgium Programs
1. Subsidies Provided to Sidmar That Are Potentially Attributable to
ALZ:
a. Water Purification Grants
2. Societe Nationale pour la Reconstruction des Secteurs Nationaux
3. Regional subsidies under the 1970 Law Investment and Interest
Subsidies
[[Page 32307]]
4. Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 1970
a. Expansion Real Estate Tax Exemption
b. Accelerated Depreciation
5. Reduced Social Security Contributions Pursuant to the Maribel Scheme
(Article 35 of the Law of June 29, 1981)
6. 1987 ALZ Common Share Transaction Between the GOB and Sidmar (also
identified as 1985 ALZ Share Subscriptions and Subsequent Transactions
in the CVD Order)
7. Industrial Reconversion Zones:
a. Albufin
8. Belgian Industrial Finance Company (``Belfin'') Loans
9. Societe Nationale de Credite a l'Industrie (``SNCI'') Loans
10. Conversion of Sidmar's Debt to Equity (OCPC-to-PB) in 1985
B. Government of Flanders Programs
1. Regional subsidies under the 1970 Law
a. Corporate Income Tax Exemption
b. Capital Registration Tax Exemption
c. Government Loan Guarantees
d. 1993 Expansion Grant
2. Special Depreciation Allowance
3. Preferential Short-Term Export Credit
4. Interest Rate Rebates
C. Programs of the European Commission
1. ECSC Article 54 Loans and Interest Rebates
2. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates and Redeployment
Aid
3. European Social Fund Grants
4. European Regional Development Fund Grants
5. Resider II Program
III. Issues for Which More Information Is Required
On May 1, 2008, the Department sought information from U&A
concerning amounts appearing in its 2005 and 2006 financial statements.
U&A submitted some requested information on May 8, 2008, and May 13,
2008. In addition, in its May 22, 2008, response to petitioners' pre-
preliminary comments, U&A stated that it had inadvertently not included
all of its divisions and cross-owned companies in its submitted total
sales and export data. After reviewing the provided documentation, we
have determined that we do not have sufficient information at this time
to make a finding on these amounts or the revised sales value and
export data. Therefore, we intend to seek further information on these
amounts and revised data and to issue an interim analysis describing
our preliminary findings with respect to these items before the final
results so that parties will have the opportunity to comment.
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for U&A, the only producer/exporter subject to
this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for
U&A to be 0.48 percent ad valorem. This rate is less than 0.5 percent.
Consequently, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate
shipments of SSPC by U&A\2\ entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, without
regard to countervailing duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). These
instructions will be issued fifteen days after publication of the final
results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ During the current review U&A has placed the following
information on the record. In 2002, ALZ in Belgium merged with
Ugine, a French producer of stainless steel sheet and strip, to
become U&A. The Department has reviewed the information provided by
U&A with regard to the merger and evaluated the company and its
affiliates for receipt of countervailable subsidies. In addition, we
have reviewed entry data provided by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to confirm that U&A is the only manufacturer of
subject merchandise exported from Belgium during the period of
review. Therefore, for countervailing duty review purposes, we will
consider ALZ to be U&A for cash deposit and assessment purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final results of this review shall be the basis for future
deposits of estimated duties. If the cash deposit rate calculated in
the final results is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be
required. The cash deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-
reviewed companies covered by this order at the most recent company-
specific rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit
rate that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this
order will be the rate for that company established in the
investigation or most recent administrative review. See CVD Order. The
``all others'' rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies that have
not received an individual rate.
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date of filing
the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit briefs in
this proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed
five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). Copies of case briefs and rebuttal
briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f).
Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless
otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days
after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR
351.310(d)(1).
The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this
administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these
preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-12777 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P