[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6534-6536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3199]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-401-056]
Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Sweden; Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order on viscose rayon staple fiber
from Sweden for the period January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996.
For information on the net subsidy for Svenska Rayon AB, as well as for
all non-reviewed companies, please see the Preliminary Results of
Review section of this notice. If the final results remain the same as
the preliminary results of this administrative review, we will instruct
the U.S. Customs Service 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 Public
Comment section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Eric Greynolds,
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-3692 or (202) 482-6071.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1979, the Department published in the Federal Register
(44 FR 28319) the countervailing duty order on viscose rayon staple
fiber from Sweden. On May 2, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' (62 FR 24081) of this countervailing duty
order. We received timely requests for review from Courtaulds Fibers
Inc. and Lenzing Fibers Corporation (petitioners) and from Svenska
Rayon AB (Svenska). We initiated the review covering the period January
1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, on June 19, 1997 (62 FR 33395).
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a), this review covers only those
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review
was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers Svenska.
This review also covers six programs.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995 (the
Act). The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to 19 CFR 355 (1997).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments from Sweden of regular
viscose rayon staple fiber and high-wet modulus (modal) viscose rayon
staple fiber. Such merchandise is classifiable under item number
5504.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item is
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description
of the scope of the proceeding remains dispositive.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act requires the Department to use facts
available if ``an interested party or any other person * * * withholds
information that has been requested by the administering authority * *
* under this title.'' The facts on the record show that the Government
of Sweden (GOS) did not comply with the Department's requests for
information required to conduct a specificity analysis. In the original
questionnaire, the Department requested information regarding
eligibility for and actual use of the benefits provided under the
Recruitment Subsidy Program, such as: (1) The enabling legislation, (2)
a translated blank copy of the application form submitted to receive
benefits under the program or a description of the procedures by which
an application is analyzed and eventually approved or disapproved, (3)
a list indicating the number of companies, and number and type of the
industries, which have received benefits under the program in the year
the provision of benefits was approved and each of the preceding three
years, (4) the number of companies that applied for benefits under the
program in the year the benefit was approved and each of the preceding
three years, and (5) the number of applicants that have been approved
or rejected in the year the benefit was approved and each of the
preceding three years. The GOS responded that the detailed and relevant
description of the program was provided in the 1995 review, and that
the information was still relevant because no amendments were made
regarding the rules and conditions of the program. The GOS also
provided an amount for the Recruitment Subsidy payment made to Svenska
but, the GOS did not provide to the Department any information
pertaining to the recipients of benefits under the program during the
POR or the two preceding years.
The Department's supplemental questionnaire again requested
specificity information from the GOS. The GOS responded that it is
still not possible for them to obtain data on the distribution of the
Recruitment Subsidy Program by industry.
The Department placed the enabling legislation on the record of the
current review, relying on the statement by the GOS that no amendments
were made in 1996. However, with respect to de facto specificity, the
record does not contain any information at all on the recipients of
benefits under this program during the period of review and in the
prior two years. While we understand that data on distribution of
benefits by industry may not be readily available, in this review, the
GOS did not provide any available documentation, such as a translated
copy of the application form that may have helped explain to the
Department why the information being requested could not be provided
and might have indicated the availability of some information that
could be useful in assessing specificity. In addition, the GOS elected
not to attempt to collect whatever data was available.
Section 776(b) of the Act permits the administrative authority to
use an inference that is adverse to the interests of an interested
party if that party has ``failed to cooperate by not acting to the best
of its ability to comply with a request for information.'' Such an
adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from (1)
the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation under this
title, (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under
section 753 regarding the country under consideration, or (4) any other
information placed on the record.
[[Page 6535]]
Because respondents were aware of the requested information but did not
comply with the Department's request for such information, we find that
respondents failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their
ability to comply with the Department's request. Therefore, we are
using adverse inferences in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
The adverse inference is a finding that the Recruitment Subsidy program
is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, and that the
amount of the benefit received by Svenska constitutes a financial
contribution which benefits the recipient. As such, this aid is
countervailable.
Analysis of Programs
I. Program Preliminarily Determined to Confer Subsidies
Recruitment Subsidy Program
The purpose of the Recruitment Subsidy Program, which commenced in
1984, is to increase employment among long-term unemployed persons. Aid
is provided by the GOS to employers for a period of six months through
grants covering a maximum of 50 percent of monthly wage costs for the
person hired up to a maximum of 7,000 Swedish Kroner per month. Under
certain conditions, the time period for a company to receive aid under
this program can be extended to 12 months.
The legislation states that this program is available to all
employers, except to state employers. Applications for aid are
submitted to the local GOS employment office which decides whether aid
should be granted. Hence, depending on circumstances in each case, the
local employment offices can approve aid at a level up to 50 percent of
wage costs and for a period up to 12 months.
We examined the specificity of the Recruitment Subsidy Program in
accordance with section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. Because the enabling
legislation does not expressly limit access to the subsidy to an
enterprise or industry, or group thereof, we examined whether the
program is de facto specific within the meaning of section
771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act.
According to 771(5A)(D)(iii), ``a subsidy is de facto specific if
one of the following factors exist: (1) The actual recipients of the
subsidy, whether considered on an enterprise or industry basis, are
limited in number; (2) An enterprise or industry is a predominant user
of the subsidy; (3) An enterprise or industry receives a
disproportionately large amount of the subsidy; or (4) The manner in
which the authority providing the subsidy has exercised discretion in
the decision to grant the subsidy indicates that an enterprise or
industry is favored over others.''
During the period of review, Svenska received grants under the
Recruitment Subsidy Program. The GOS provided no information on actual
usage of the program by enterprise or industry nor did it identify any
other information through which the Department could analyze whether
the program is de facto specific. Accordingly, based on the facts
available, we preliminarily determine that this program is de facto
specific and, therefore, countervailable within the meaning of section
771(5A)(D)(iii). To calculate the subsidy to this company, we divided
the amount of the grants the company received during the period of
review by its total sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine
the subsidy to be 0.06 percent ad valorem.
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that
the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply
for or receive benefits under these programs during the period of
review:
A. Grants for Temporary Employment for Public Works
B. Regional Development Grants
C. Transportation Grants
D. Location-of-Industry Loans
III. Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Terminated
Manpower Reduction Grants
We examined the Manpower Reduction Grants program and preliminarily
determine it to be terminated because the GOS provided documentation
that no government funds have been allocated to this program since
1982.
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(c)(4)(ii), we calculated an
individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this
administrative review. For the period January 1, 1996, through December
31, 1996, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for Svenska to be
0.06 percent ad valorem.
As provided for in the Act, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad
valorem in an administrative review is de minimis. Accordingly, if the
final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary
results, the Department intends to instruct Customs to liquidate,
without regard to countervailing duties, shipments of the subject
merchandise from Svenska exported on or after January 1, 1996, and on
or before December 31, 1996. Also, the cash deposits required for this
company will be zero.
Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies,
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as
provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR
355.22(a). Pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(g), for all companies for which a
review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit
rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate
previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate
applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a
request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and
The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993)
(interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic
assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g)). Therefore, the
cash deposit rates for all companies except those covered by this
review will be unchanged by the results of this review.
We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this
order are those established in the most recently completed
administrative proceeding, conducted pursuant to the statutory
provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments. See
Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber from Sweden; Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 66940 (August 18, 1997). These rates
shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company
assigned these rates is requested. In addition, for the period January
1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, the assessment rates applicable to
all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit
rates in effect at the time of entry.
[[Page 6536]]
Public Comment
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted
seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties who
submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after the
scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs
and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance
with 19 CFR 355.38.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 355.38, are due. The Department will
publish the final results of this administrative review, including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief
or at a hearing.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).
Dated: February 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-3199 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
