Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 1496-1524 [2010-129]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1496-1524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-129]



[[Page 1495]]

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

Part III





Department of Commerce





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



International Trade Administration



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



Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / 
Notices

[[Page 1496]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-821]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 
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 
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for the period of 
review (POR) January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. These 
preliminary results cover one company Tata Steel Limited (Tata). For 
the information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, see 
the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section.

DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest, 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) 482-3338

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On December 1, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Notice of 
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From India and Indonesia, 66 FR 60198 (December 3, 2001). On 
December 1, 2008, 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, 73 FR 72764 (December 1, 
2008). On December 31, 2008, U.S. Steel Corporation (Petitioner) 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Essar 
Steel Limited (Essar), Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat), JSW Steel 
Limited (JSW), and Tata.
    On February 2, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India, covering the period January 1, 2008, through 
December 31, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 
5821 (February 2, 2009).
    On February 6, 2009, the Department issued a questionnaire to the 
Government of India (GOI), Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata. On February 6, 
2009, Essar and JSW notified the Department that they had no shipments 
during the POR. On February 9, 2009, Ispat notified the Department that 
it had no shipments during the POR. On February 25, 2009, Tata notified 
the Department that it had no sales of commercial quantities of subject 
merchandise during the POR. However, Tata did acknowledge that it made 
certain sales during the POR. On March 11, 2009, counsel for Tata met 
with Department officials concerning an alleged sale by Tata to the 
United States that is currently on the record of the antidumping 
proceeding. See Memorandum to the File regarding ``Meeting with Counsel 
for Tata Steel Limited,'' dated March 11, 2009, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce Building. On March 19, 
2009, Tata submitted information pertaining to an additional sale of 
subject merchandise from India in question during the POR. On March 23, 
2009, Tata submitted additional data, as requested by the Department, 
which pertains to certain sales during the POR. On March 27, 2009, the 
Department made a finding that Tata had sales of subject merchandise 
during the POR and extended the due date for Tata's questionnaire 
response because of the confusion as to whether Tata did or did not 
have any sales during the POR. See Memorandum to the File regarding 
``Sales by Tata during the POR,'' dated March 27, 2009, which is on 
file in the CRU of the main Commerce Building.
    On April 23, 2009, we received a questionnaire response from the 
GOI. As discussed below, the GOI's submission did not contain responses 
concerning certain programs administered by the state governments. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOI regarding programs 
addressed in the initial CVD questionnaire, including programs 
administered by the state governments. On August 10, 2009 and September 
24, 2009, the GOI submitted responses to the supplemental 
questionnaires; however, it failed to respond to certain programs 
administered by the state governments.
    On April 25, 2009, Department officials spoke with counsel for Tata 
regarding the company's failure to submit a questionnaire response. 
Tata's counsel informed the Department that the company was no longer 
participating in the administrative review and would not be responding 
to the questionnaire. See Memorandum to the File regarding ``Phone 
Conversation with Counsel for Tata Steel Limited,'' dated April 23, 
2009, which is on file in the CRU of the main Commerce Building.
    On May 4, 2009, Petitioner withdrew its request for review with 
respect to Essar, Ispat, and JSW. As a result, the Department rescinded 
this review, in part, on June 4, 2009, with respect to Essar, Ispat, 
and JSW. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from India: 
Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
26847 (June 4, 2009). On August 12, 2009, Petitioner submitted comments 
with respect to the failure by Tata to cooperate in the administrative 
review and argued that the Department should resort to adverse facts 
available (AFA) when determining the net subsidy to apply to Tata. On 
October 14, 2009, Tata submitted a letter in which it responded to 
Petitioner's comments concerning the AFA rate to be applied to Tata in 
the instant review.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those 
producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. 
The company subject to this review is Tata. This review covers 93 
programs.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain hot-rolled carbon-
quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch 
or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or 
not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic 
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed 
layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a 
thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 
times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products 
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, or a width exceeding 150 
mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 
mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not 
less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of the order.
    Specifically included in the scope of the order are vacuum 
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free 
(IF) steels, high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate 
for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-carbon 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or 
niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to 
stabilize

[[Page 1497]]

carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with 
micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, 
vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels 
contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and 
aluminum.
    Steel products included in the scope of the order, regardless of 
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over 
each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is two 
percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below 
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of the order.
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
     SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTS.
    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in 
the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 
7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel 
covered by the order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized; 
high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel 
may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter 
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 
7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written 
description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

Adverse Facts Available

I. The GOI

    As discussed above, on February 6, 2009, the Department issued the 
initial questionnaire to Tata and the GOI, including state governments. 
The GOI filed a response to the Department's initial questionnaire on 
April 23, 2009 (April QR). However, the GOI failed to provide responses 
with regard to certain programs administered by the state governments 
of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka. On 
July 30, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
the GOI and again requested responses with regard to the state 
government programs. The GOI submitted a response on August 10, 2009, 
but again failed to provide responses with regard to the programs 
administered by the state governments. On August 21, 2009, the 
Department issued another supplemental questionnaire to the GOI 
requesting additional information from the state governments mentioned 
above, as well as additional and clarifying information from the state 
government of Jharkhand concerning its responses in the April QR. In 
its response, the GOI again failed to submit responses with regard to 
the programs administered by the state governments. On September 10, 
2009, the Department issued to the GOI a final supplemental 
questionnaire in which we requested a second time the same information 
from the August 21, 2009, supplemental questionnaire on the State 
programs administered by the government of Jharkhand. In its response, 
the GOI submitted incomplete information on the programs administered 
by the state government of Jharkhand. Specifically, in the September 
24, 2009, questionnaire response, the government of Jharkhand submitted 
a brief letter from the Department of Industries restating that Tata 
had not received any benefits during the POR. No other information or 
documentation requested by the Department to demonstrate this claim was 
provided.
    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), provide that the Department shall use the ``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 possible, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department 
may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the 
original and subsequent responses. 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 has demonstrated that it has acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the

[[Page 1498]]

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.
    Because the GOI failed to provide the requested information by the 
established deadlines, the Department does not have the necessary 
information on the record to determine whether the subsidies received 
by Tata under the state-administered programs constitute financial 
contributions and are specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. Therefore, the Department must 
base its determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance 
with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act 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 AFA information derived from 
the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative 
review, or other information placed on the record. In a countervailing 
duty proceeding, the Department requires information from both the 
government of the country whose merchandise is under the order and the 
foreign domestic producers and exporters. When the government fails to 
provide requested information concerning alleged subsidy programs, the 
Department, as AFA, typically finds that a financial contribution 
exists under the alleged program and that the program is specific. See 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) 
(unchanged in the Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006) (in which the 
Department relied on adverse inferences in determining that the 
Government of Korea directed credit to the steel industry in a manner 
that constituted a financial contribution and was specific to the steel 
industry within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(D)(iii) 
of the Act, respectively). However, the Department will normally rely 
on the foreign producer's or exporter's records to determine the 
existence and amount of the benefit. Consistent with its past practice, 
because the GOI failed to provide information concerning certain 
alleged subsidies, the Department, as AFA, has determined that those 
programs confer a financial contribution and are specific pursuant to 
sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. The analysis 
of the extent of the benefit, if any, is discussed under the sections 
below entitled ``Programs Administered by the Government of India'', 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Gujarat,'' 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Maharashtra,'' 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh'', 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Jharkhand,'' 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Chhattisgarh,'' and 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Karantaka.''
    In the instant review, Tata did not provide the Department with any 
information during the POR, as discussed below under the ``Tata'' 
section. Accordingly, in such instances, the Department must base its 
determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to the programs in the 
initial questionnaire administered by the GOI and state governments.

II. Tata

    With respect to Tata, although the company maintains that it had no 
sales of commercial quantities during the POR, it provided data 
concerning sales of subject merchandise during the POR on March 19 and 
March 23, 2009. After considering the information on the record, the 
Department decided that Tata did have sales during the POR and 
requested on March 27, 2009, that Tata submit a questionnaire response. 
See Memorandum to the File regarding ``Sales by Tata during the POR,'' 
dated March 27, 2009, which is on file in the CRU of the main Commerce 
Building.
    The Department extended Tata's deadline to respond to the initial 
questionnaire. Specifically, on March 27, 2009, the Department extended 
the March 15, 2009, original deadline until April 17, 2009. Id. 
However, Tata failed to provide a response to the initial 
questionnaire. On April 23, 2009, Department officials contacted Tata 
regarding its failure to respond to the Department's February 6, 2009 
questionnaire, which was due on April 17, 2009. See Memorandum to the 
File regarding ``Phone Conversation with Counsel for Tata Steel 
Limited,'' dated April 23, 2009, which is on file in the CRU of the 
main Commerce Building. Tata indicated that it would not participate in 
this administrative review. Id. No further response has been filed by 
Tata in this segment of the proceeding.
    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.
    Because Tata failed to provide the requested information by the 
established deadlines, the Department does not have the necessary 
information to determine the net subsidies received by Tata under the 
GOI administered programs as well as those programs administered by the 
state governments. Therefore, the Department must base its 
determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to the GOI and state 
government programs covered in this review.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an 
adverse inference in applying the fact 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. Because Tata did not provide the 
requested information on any of the programs covered by this review, we 
find that Tata did not act to the best of its ability and, therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are employing adverse 
inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 
Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA 
information derived from the petition, the original determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record.
    As explained above, due to the GOI's failure to submit a timely 
response, we find that all programs administered by the GOI and the 
state governments continued to operate during the POR, and that these 
programs provided financial contributions and were specific within the 
meanings of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively.
    Moreover, because Tata failed to provide the requested information 
with respect to the GOI and state government programs by the 
established deadlines, despite the extensions of time granted by the 
Department, we do not have the necessary information to determine the

[[Page 1499]]

net subsidies Tata received from these programs. Therefore, as AFA, we 
find that Tata received a benefit from all these programs.
    In assigning net subsidy rates for each of the programs for which 
specific information was required from Tata, we were guided by the 
Department's approach in the prior reviews as well as recent CVD 
investigations involving the People's Republic of China (PRC). See 
e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 20923 (May 6, 2009) (Final Results of Fifth HRS Review) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of Fifth 
HRS Decision Memorandum) at ``SGOC Industrial Policy 2004-2009'' 
section; see also, Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination, 74 FR 4936 (January 28, 2009) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Application of Facts Available and 
Use of Adverse Inferences'' section. In these preliminary results, as 
AFA, we have first sought to apply, where available, the highest, above 
de minimis subsidy rate calculated for an identical program from any 
segment of this proceeding. Absent such a rate, we have applied, where 
available, the highest, above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for a 
similar program from any segment of this proceeding. Under our AFA 
approach, absent a subsidy rate calculated for the same or similar 
program, the Department applies the highest above de minimis, 
calculated subsidy rate for any program from any CVD proceeding 
involving the country in which the subject merchandise is produced, so 
long as the producer of the subject merchandise or the industry to 
which it belongs could have used the program for which the rates were 
calculated. In the instant review, it was not necessary to rely on this 
third prong in the hierarchy of our AFA methodology because above de 
minimis subsidy rates for identical and/or similar programs were 
available within the proceeding. In accordance with this methodology, 
we have applied AFA rates and have assigned these rates to Tata for all 
the subsidy programs as discussed further below.

Analysis of Programs

A. Programs Administered by the Government of India

1. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing
    The Department of Banking Operations & Development, Directives 
Division of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) provides short-term pre-
shipment export financing, or ``packing credits,'' to exporters through 
commercial banks. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or 
letter of credit to a bank, companies receive pre-shipment credit lines 
upon which they may draw as needed. Credit line limits are established 
by commercial banks based upon a company's creditworthiness and past 
export performance, and may be denominated either in Indian rupees or 
in foreign currency. Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian 
companies must, by law, charge interest on this credit at rates capped 
by the RBI. For post-shipment export financing, exporters are eligible 
to receive post-shipment short-term credit in the form of discounted 
trade bills or advances by commercial banks at preferential interest 
rates to finance the transit period between the date of shipment of 
exported merchandise and payment from export customers.
    The Department has previously determined that these export 
financing programs are countervailable to the extent that the interest 
rates are capped by the GOI and are lower than the rates exporters 
would have paid on comparable commercial loans. See e.g., Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 6530 (February 12, 
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of 
3rd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum) at ``Pre-Shipment and Post-
Shipment Export Financing'' section. Specifically, the Department 
determined that the GOI's issuance of financing at preferential rates 
constituted a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) 
of the Act and that the interest savings under this program conferred a 
benefit pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. The Department 
also found this program to be contingent upon exports and, therefore, 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in 
this review to warrant a reconsideration of the Department's finding.
    In its questionnaire response, the GOI reported that RBI does not 
maintain company-specific accounting records. See April QR at 52. 
Therefore, the GOI is unable to provide information as to whether Tata 
applied for, accrued, or received benefits under the program during the 
POR. Id. As discussed more fully under the ``Adverse Facts Available'' 
section above, Tata did not submit a response to any of the 
Department's questionnaires and, therefore, as AFA pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted 
from pre-and post-export financing during the POR within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we have assigned a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) 
(HRS Investigation Final) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (HRS Investigation Decision Memorandum) at ``Pre- and Post-
Export Financing'' section.
2. Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
    The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties 
and an exemption for excise taxes on imports of capital goods. Under 
this program, producers may import capital equipment at a reduced 
customs duty, subject to an export obligation equal to eight times the 
duty saved to be fulfilled over a period of eight years (12 years where 
the CIF value is Rs. 100 crore \1\) from the date the license was 
issued. For failure to meet the export obligation, a company is subject 
to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on the 
extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A crore is equal to 10,000,000 rupees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has previously determined that the import duty 
reductions provided under the EPCGS constitute a countervailable export 
subsidy. See e.g., Final Results of 3rd PET Film Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme'' section. 
Specifically, the Department has found that under the EPCGS program, 
the GOI provides a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D) of 
the Act. The Department also found this program to be specific under 
section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because it is contingent upon export 
performance. No new

[[Page 1500]]

information or evidence of changed circumstances has been provided with 
respect to this program. Therefore, we continue to find that import 
duty reductions provided under the EPCGS are countervailable export 
subsidies.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 16.63 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Final and accompanying HRS Investigation Decision 
Memorandum at ``Export Promotion for Capital Goods (EPCGS) Scheme'' 
section.
3. Advance License Program (ALP)
    Under the ALP exporters may import, duty free, specified quantities 
of materials required to manufacture products that are subsequently 
exported. The exporting companies, however, remain contingently liable 
for the unpaid duties until they have fulfilled their export 
requirement. The quantities of imported materials and exported finished 
products are linked through standard input/output norms (SIONs) 
established by the GOI.
    The Department has previously found this program to be 
countervailable. See e.g., Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from India, 71 FR 7534 (February 13, 2006) (Final Results of 2nd 
PET Film Review), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
(Final Results of 2nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum) at ``Advance 
License Program'' section and ``Comment 1.'' See also, Notice of Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from 
India, 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006) (Final Determination of Lined Paper 
Investigation), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final 
Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum) at 
``Advance License Program'' section. In the Final Results of 2nd PET 
Film Review, the Department found that the ALP provides a financial 
contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, the 
GOI does not have in place, and does not apply, a system that is 
reasonable and effective, within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4), 
to confirm which inputs and in what amounts are consumed in the 
production of the exported products. Therefore, the entire amount of 
the import duty deferral or exemption earned by the respondent 
constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. See Final 
Results of 2nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and 
Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 10. See also, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 1578 (January 9, 2008) (Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review) and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 40295 (July 14, 2008) (Final Results of 
Fourth HRS Review) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
(Final Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum) at ``Advance 
License Program (ALP)'' section.\2\ No new information has been 
submitted on the record in this review to warrant a reconsideration of 
the Department's findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In this review, as in the past review, the GOI has argued 
that, pursuant to changes in its Foreign Trade and Policy Handbook 
of Procedures, advance licenses are issued with actual user 
conditions and are not transferable even after completion of the 
export obligation. The Department analyzed these changes in the past 
review and determined that the systemic issues continued to exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, we are assigning a 
net subsidy rate of 0.50 percent ad valorem, which corresponds to the 
highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for the same program 
in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review Decision Memorandum at ``Advance License Program (ALP)'' 
section.
4. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
    India's DEPS was enacted on April 1, 1997, as a successor program 
to the Passbook Scheme (PBS). As with PBS, the DEPS enables exporting 
companies to earn import duty exemptions in the form of passbook 
credits rather than cash. All exporters are eligible to earn DEPS 
credits on a post-export basis, provided that the GOI has established a 
SION for the exported product. DEPS credits can be used for any 
subsequent imports, regardless of whether they are consumed in the 
production of an export product. DEPS credits are valid for 12 months 
and are transferable after the foreign exchange is realized from the 
export sales on which the DEPS credits are earned. With respect to 
subject merchandise, the GOI has established a SION for the steel 
industry.
    The Department has previously determined that DEPS is a 
countervailable program, which provides a financial contribution and is 
specific as an export contingent subsidy within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. See e.g., Final 
Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at 
``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme'' section. The Department further 
found that the benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act is the entire 
amount of import duty exempted, because the GOI does not have in place, 
and does not apply, a system that is within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.519(a)(4), reasonable and effective for determining what imports 
are consumed in the production of the exported product and in what 
amounts. Id. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances 
has been presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of the 
Department's finding.
    We have previously determined that this program provides a 
recurring benefit under 19 CFR 351.519(c). See e.g., Preliminary 
Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, 71 FR at 7920 (unchanged in 
Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation). In accordance with 
past practice and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(b)(2), we preliminarily 
find that benefits from the DEPS program are conferred as of the date 
of exportation to the shipment for which the DEPS credits are earned. 
See e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, 64 FR 73131 
(December 29, 1999) at Comment 4 (explaining that for programs such as 
the DEPS, ``we calculate the benefit on an ``earned'' basis (that is 
upon export) where it is provided as a percentage of the value of the 
exported merchandise on a shipment-by-shipment basis and the exact 
amount of the exemption is known.'')
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(DEPS)'' section.
5. Status Certificate Program
    India's Status Certificate Program is detailed under paragraph 3.5 
of its Foreign Trade Policy Handbook. This program details the 
following privileges to exporters, depending on their export 
performance for the current year, plus the preceding three years:

[[Page 1501]]

    (i). Authorizations and Customs clearances for both imports and 
exports on self-declaration basis;
    (ii). Fixation of Input-Output norms on priority within 60 days;
    (iii). Exemption from compulsory negotiation of documents through 
banks. The remittance, however, would continue to be received through 
banking channels;
    (iv). 100 percent retention of foreign exchange in EEEC account:
    (v). Enhancement in normal repatriation period from 180 days to 360 
days;
    (vi). (Deleted);
    (vii). Exemption from furnishing of Bank Guarantee in Schemes under 
this Policy. See GOI's April QR at 60.
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department examined this program in 
which certain respondents participated during that POR. See Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1597. In particular, we inquired 
about the extent to which the respondents used the provision related to 
foreign currency retention under the Status Certificate Program during 
the POR. Id. However, the Department found that the program was not 
used during the POR. See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review, and Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Programs 
Determined to Be Not Used'' section. As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a foreign currency loan, and a 
benefit within the meaning of 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 
respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post Export 
Financing''.
6. Loan Guarantees From the GOI
    In the underlying investigation, the Department found that the GOI, 
through the State Bank of India (SBI) provides loan guarantees on a 
case-by-case basis to particular industrial sectors. See Notice of 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 
of Final Countervailing Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 
Determinations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from India, 66 
FR 20240, 20249 (April 20, 2001) (Preliminary Determination of HRS 
Investigation), unchanged in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India, 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) (Final Determination of HRS 
Investigation) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. We 
determined these SBI loan guarantees confer countervailable subsidies 
because they provide a financial contribution in the form of a 
potential direct transfer of funds or liabilities and are specific to a 
limited number of companies within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) 
and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, respectively. Id. In accordance with 
section 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, the loan guarantees provide a 
benefit to the recipient in the amount of the difference between the 
amount the recipient pays on the guaranteed loan and the amount the 
recipient would pay for a comparable commercial loan if there were no 
government guarantee. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this 
finding. Therefore, in the instant review, we preliminarily continue to 
find, as AFA, that the GOI's loan guarantees under this program provide 
a financial contribution in the form of a potential direct transfer of 
funds or liabilities and are specific to a limited number of industries 
within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of 
the Act, respectively. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from 
this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, in the 
form of the difference in the amount the firm paid on the guaranteed 
loan and the amount the firm would pay for a comparable loan if there 
were no government guarantee.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning, a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post Export Financing'' 
section.
7. Steel Development Fund (SDF) Loans
    The Steel Development Fund (SDF) was established in 1978, to which 
India's integrated steel producers, including Tata, contributed the 
proceeds from GOI-mandated price increases (i.e., levies). In turn, 
these producers were eligible to take out long-term loans from the SDF 
at advantageous rates. See Final Determination of HRC Investigation 
Decision Memorandum at ``Loans from the Steel Development Fund'' 
section.
    In the underlying investigation, the Department determined that the 
GOI exercises control over the way in which funding is disbursed under 
this program. See Preliminary Determination of HRS Investigation 
(unchanged in Final Determination of HRS Investigation).
    Therefore, the Department determined that loans under the SDF 
constitute a financial contribution within the meaning of section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. We also determined that loans under the SDF 
are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act 
because eligibility for loans from the SDF is limited to steel 
companies. We further found that loans under the SDF program confer a 
benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act to the extent that the 
interest paid under the program during the POR was less than what would 
have been charged on a comparable commercial loan. Id. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in 
this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this determination. 
Therefore, in the instant review, we preliminarily continue to find, as 
AFA, that the GOI's provision of SDF loans under this program provide a 
financial contribution in the form of a potential direct transfer of 
funds and are specific to a limited number of industries within the 
meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 
respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, 
within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 0.99 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Loan from the Steel Development 
Fund (SDF) Fund'' section.
8. Captive Mining of Iron Ore
    Under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act of 
1957, as amended, (MMDR) and the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960, as 
amended, the GOI grants captive mining rights for minerals, including 
iron ore, to eligible applicants. The MMDR includes a schedule that 
lists minerals for which mining rights are controlled

[[Page 1502]]

by the GOI. Iron ore is included on this schedule.
    In Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department 
determined that the MMDR captive mining program was countervailable. 
See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1591 (unchanged 
in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). Specifically, the Department 
determined that the program provided a financial contribution in the 
form of the provision of a good within the meaning of 771(D)(iii) of 
the Act and conferred a benefit within the meaning of section 
771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act by enabling the participating firms to 
purchase iron ore from the GOI for less than adequate remuneration 
(LTAR). We further determined that the program is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, because it is limited 
to certain enterprises, such as steel producers. Id. In the instant 
review, we preliminarily continue to find that the GOI's provision of 
iron ore for LTAR under this program provide a financial contribution 
in the form of a provision of a good and is specific to a limited 
number of industries within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 
771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 
preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata 
used and benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 
771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of Iron 
Ore'' section.
9. Captive Mining Rights of Coal
    In 1973, the GOI nationalized coal mining under the Coal Mines 
Nationalization Act. The legislation initially reserved coal mining for 
public companies. However, pursuant to the Coal Mines Nationalization 
Amendment Act of 1976, the law was revised to allow iron and steel 
companies to mine for coal for captive use (i.e., the right of selected 
companies to extract coal from government-owned land for use in their 
production processes). In 1993 through 1996, the GOI amended the Act to 
also allow power companies and the cement industry to mine coal for 
captive use.
    In Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department 
determined that this program was countervailable. See Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1592 (unchanged in Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review). Specifically, the Department determined that the 
provision of coal constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
provision of a good within the meaning of 771(D)(iii) of the Act. We 
also determined that the program conferred a benefit within the meaning 
of section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act by enabling the participating firms 
to purchase coal from the GOI for LTAR. We further determined that the 
program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 
because preference is given in the allocation of coal mining rights or 
``blocks'' to steel producers whose annual production capacity exceeds 
one million tons. Id. In the instant review, we preliminarily continue 
to find that the GOI's provision of coal under this program provide a 
financial contribution in the form of a provision of a good and is 
specific to a limited number of industries within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 
respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, 
within the meaning of 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining 
Rights of Coal'' section.
10. Export Oriented Units (EOU) Program: Duty-Free Import of Capital 
Goods and Raw Materials
    Under this program EOUs are entitled to import capital goods and 
raw materials duty-free. In the Preliminary Determination of PET Resin, 
we determined that this program was countervailable. We found that the 
assistance provided under this program was specific as an export 
subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. See Notice 
of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade 
Polyethylene Terephthalate (``PET'') Resin From India (Preliminary 
Determination of PET Resin), 69 FR 52866, 52870 (August 30, 2004) 
(unchanged in the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (``PET'') Resin From India, 70 
FR 13460 (March 21, 2005) (Final Determination of PET Resin), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (PET Resin Investigation 
Decision Memorandum).) We found that this program provides a financial 
contribution in the form of forgone revenue within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and confers a benefit in the amount of 
exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties and certain sales taxes 
on capital equipment in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act 
and section 351.519(4)(i) of the Department's regulations. See PET 
Resin Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) 
Program: Duty-Free Import of Capital Goods and Raw Materials'' section. 
In the instant review, we preliminarily continue to find the GOI's 
provision of assistance under this program provides a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific as an 
export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily 
find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 
benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(DEPS)'' section.
11. EOU Program: Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) Paid on 
Materials Procured Domestically
    In the Preliminary Determination of PET Resin, we found that under 
this program, EOUs are entitled to reimbursements of the CST paid on 
materials procured domestically, applicable to purchases of both raw 
materials and capital goods. See Preliminary Determination of PET 
Resin, 69 FR at 52870 (unchanged in Final Determination of PET Resin).
    In the Preliminary Determination of PET Resin, the Department 
determined that this program was countervailable. Specifically, we 
found that the program is specific as an export subsidy within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. This program provides a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue foregone within the 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and confers a benefit in the amount of 
reimbursements of CST in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 
Id. In the instant review, we preliminarily continue to find the GOI's 
provision of assistance under this program provides a financial

[[Page 1503]]

contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific as an 
export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily 
find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 
benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat Tax Incentives'' section.
12. Income Tax Exemption Scheme Under Section (80 HHC)
    Under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters 
to deduct profits derived from the export of merchandise from taxable 
income. In prior CVD proceedings, the Department has found this program 
to be an export subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the 
Act, and thus countervailable,. See e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings 
from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 
65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000), and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at ``Income Tax Deductions Under Section 80 HHC'' section. 
This program provides a financial contribution in the form of revenue 
foregone and confers a benefit in the form of tax savings to the 
company within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant 
reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, in the instant review, we 
preliminarily continue to find the tax savings to the company under 
this program provides a financial contribution in the form of revenue 
forgone and is specific as an export subsidy within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. 
Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, within the 
meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in any segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of 
Gujarat Tax Incentives'' section.
13. Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
    The Department has previously determined that the GOI provides 
high-grade iron ore to steel producers for LTAR through the government-
owned National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC). See Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 71 FR 28665 (May 17, 
2006), and accompanying Final Results of Second HRS Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration'' section. The NMDC is governed by the Ministry of Steel 
and the GOI holds the vast majority of its shares. In past reviews, we 
have found the NMDC to be a government authority. See e.g., Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, and accompanying Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for 
Less Than Adequate Remuneration section.''
    In the Final Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department found 
that, through NMDC, the GOI provides a direct financial contribution in 
the form of a provision of a good as defined under section 
771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act, which is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the actual recipients are 
limited to industries that use iron ore, including the steel industry. 
See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review and accompanying Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade Iron 
ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration'' section. The Department also 
found pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act that a benefit is 
conferred, because the government provides the good or service for 
LTAR. See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at 
``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration'' 
section.
    In its questionnaire responses, the GOI provided a list of 
companies that purchased high-grade iron ore from NMDC during the POR 
and Tata does not appear on this list. See GOI's April QR at 43 and 
August 10, 2009 QR. However, without Tata's cooperation, we find that 
this list does not constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within 
the meaning of sections 782(c)(3) and (2) of the Act, respectively, 
that Tata or any of its affiliates did not purchase iron ore from NMDC 
during the POR. The Department has in the past stated that it cannot 
rely solely upon the government's statements to make a determination of 
non-use. See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final 
Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 
35639 (June 24, 2008) (LWS from China), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (LWS from China Investigation Decision 
Memorandum). Therefore, we preliminarily find that Tata benefitted from 
this program within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 16.14 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fifth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade 
Iron Ore for LTAR'' section.
14. Market Development Assistance (MDA)
    In Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, the Department found 
that the Federation of Indian Export Organization administers grants 
under the MDA program, subject to approval by the Ministry of Commerce. 
See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 55 FR 46699, 46702 (November 6, 
1990) (Preliminary Results of Sixth Castings Review) (unchanged in 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR1956 (January 18, 1991)). The 
purpose of the programs is to provide grants-in-aid to approved 
organizations (i.e., export houses) to promote the development of 
markets for Indian goods abroad. Such development projects may include 
market research, export publicity, and participation in trade fairs and 
exhibitions. Id.
    The Department found that the MDA grants were countervailable. See 
Preliminary Results of Sixth Castings Review (unchanged in Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-
Metal Castings From India). The program provides a direct financial 
contribution and confers a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, and is specific as an export 
subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. Id.
    In its April QR, the GOI stated that Tata had not ``availed any 
benefits under

[[Page 1504]]

this program,'' and in its September 4, 2009, questionnaire response 
(September QR) submitted a certificate from the administering authority 
attesting to the same. See April QR at 59 and September 4 QR at 11. 
However, absent the cooperation of Tata, we do not find that these 
submissions constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within the 
meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, respectively, 
demonstrating that Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from 
this program. The Department has in the past stated that it cannot rely 
solely upon the government's statements to make a determination of non-
use. See LWS from China and accompanying LWS from China Investigation 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Therefore, as AFA, we preliminarily 
find that Tata benefitted from this program within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``The GOI's Forgiveness of SDF 
Loans Issued to SAIL'' section.
15. Market Access Initiative (MAI)
    According to section 3.2 of the GOI's Foreign Trade Policy 2004-
2009:
    ``The Market Access Initiative (MAI) scheme is intended to provide 
financial assistance for medium term export promotion efforts with a 
sharp focus on a country/product, and is administered by the Department 
of Commerce (DoC). Financial assistance is available for Export 
Promotion Councils, Industry and Trade Associations, Agencies of State 
Governments, Indian Commercial Missions abroad and other eligible 
entities as may be notified. A whole range of activities can be funded 
under the MAI scheme. These include, amongst others, (i) market 
studies, * * * (iii) sales promotion campaigns, * * * (v) publicity 
campaigns * * *'' See GOI's April QR at Annex 7 page 28.
    In past proceedings, the Department has investigated this program 
to the extent that it provides financial assistance from the GOI to 
approved organizations which promote exports by offsetting the expense 
of foreign market analysis and promotional publications. See 
Preliminary Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, 71 FR at 7922 
(unchanged in Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, and 
Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at 
the ``Programs Determined to be Not Used'' section).
    The GOI stated in its April QR that the respondent company had not 
``availed any benefits under this program,'' and in its September 4 QR 
submitted a certificate from the administering authority attesting to 
the same. See April QR at 67 and September 4 QR at 12. However, absent 
the cooperation of Tata, we do not find that these submissions 
constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within the meaning of 
sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, respectively, demonstrating that 
Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from this program during 
the POR. The Department has in the past stated that it cannot rely 
solely upon the government's statements to make a determination of non-
use. See LWS from China. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Tata 
benefitted from this program within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of 
the Act. Furthermore, as AFA, we find that Tata's use of the MAI 
program provides a financial contribution in the form of a grant and 
confers a benefit as a grant within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. The Department 
also finds, as AFA, that the program is specific as an export subsidy 
within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``The GOI's Forgiveness of SDF 
Loans Issued to SAIL''.
16. Special Economic Zone Act of 2005 (SEZ Act): Duty Free Import/
Domestic Procurement of Goods and Services for Development, Operation, 
and Maintenance of SEZ Units Program
    In the Fifth HRS Review, we found that, under this program, 
companies with SEZ units may import from overseas or procure 
domestically duty-free goods and services. See Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results 
and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 73 
FR 79791, 79797 (December 30, 2008) (Fifth HRS Preliminary Results) 
(unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Stee