[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18086-18087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9549]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-412-811]
Notice of Court Decision: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth
Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1997.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 10, 1997, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) affirmed the International Trade Administration's remand
determination that the Special Steels Business, a productive unit of
the state-owned British Steel Corporation, was not a person or an
artificial person and, therefore, was not capable of receiving a
subsidy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Malmrose, AD/CVD Enforcement,
Office I, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 27, 1993, in the Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot Rolled Lead
and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom (58 FR 6237),
the International Trade Administration (ITA) determined that subsidies
previously bestowed on the state-owned British Steel Corporation (BSC)
passed through, in part, to United Engineering Steels, Ltd. (UES), a
joint-venture
[[Page 18087]]
company, when UES purchased the Special Steels Business (SSB), one of
BSC's productive units, in an arm's-length transaction. The ITA's
determination was appealed. The ITA subsequently requested, and was
granted, a remand in order to reconsider its final determination. On
remand, the ITA adopted its reasoning in Certain Steel Products From
the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37,393 (July 9, 1993), in which it determined
that part of the price UES paid for the productive unit purchased from
BSC constituted payment for prior subsidies. On June 7, 1994, in Inland
Steel Bar Co. v. United States, 858 F. Supp. 179 (CIT 1994) (Inland I),
the CIT overturned the ITA's determination that previously bestowed
subsidies passed through with a productive unit sold in an arm's-length
transaction to a private party.
In Inland Steel Bar Co. v. United States, 86 F.3d 1174 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (Inland II), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded Inland I,
concluding that the lower court had erred in holding that as a matter
of law a subsidy could not pass through during an arm's-length
transaction. The CIT subsequently remanded the case to the ITA to make
a determination pursuant to British Steel plc v. United States, 879 F.
Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995) (British Steel I), appeals docketed, Nos. 96-1401
to -06 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 1996), and British Steel plc v. United
States, 924 F. Supp. 139 (CIT 1996) (British Steel II), appeals
docketed, Nos. 96-1401 to -06 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 1996), whether the
SSB was a productive unit capable of receiving subsidies. Pursuant to
British Steel I and British Steel II, the ITA determined that the SSB
was not a productive unit capable of receiving subsidies. This remand
was affirmed by the CIT in Inland Steel Bar Co. v. United States, Slip
Op. 97-18 (Feb. 10, 1997) (Inland Steel III).
In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed.
Cir. 1990), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
held that, pursuant to 19 USC section 1516a(e), the Department must
publish a notice of a court decision which is not ``in harmony'' with a
Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's opinion in Inland
Steel III on February 10, 1997, constitutes a decision not in harmony
with the Department's final affirmative determination. Publication of
this notice fulfills the Timken requirement.
Accordingly, the Department will continue to suspend liquidation
pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a
``conclusive'' court decision. Absent an appeal, or, if appealed, upon
a ``conclusive'' court decision affirming the CIT's opinion, the
countervailing duty order will be revoked effective February 20, 1997.
Dated: March 27, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-9549 Filed 4-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
