[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33577-33582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15623]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[C-475-817]
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Oil Country
Tubular Goods (``OCTG'') From Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wilkniss, Office of
Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0588.
Final Determination
The Department determines that benefits which constitute subsidies
within the meaning of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''), are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or
exporters in Italy of OCTG. For information on the estimated net
subsidies, please see the Suspension of Liquidation section of this
notice.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994. References to the Countervailing Duties:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 54 FR
23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed Regulations), which has been withdrawn,
are provided solely for further explanation of the Department's CVD
practice.
Case History
Since the publication of the preliminary determination in the
Federal Register (59 FR 61870, December 2, 1994), the following events
have occurred.
On December 23, 1994, we aligned the final countervailing duty
determination in this investigation with the final determination in the
companion antidumping investigation of OCTG from Italy (59 FR 66295).
We conducted verification of the responses submitted on behalf of
the Government of Italy (``GOI''), and Dalmine S.p.A. (``Dalmine'')
from January 22 through January 27, 1995.
On April 19, 1995, we postponed the final determination in this
case to June 19, 1995 (60 FR 19571).
On May 2, 1995 we received a case brief from respondent. Neither
petitioner nor respondent requested a hearing in this investigation.
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, OCTG are hollow steel products
of circular cross-section, including oil well casing, tubing, and drill
pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy),
whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American
Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished
or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG
products). This scope does not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe
containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The OCTG subject to this
investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers:
7304.20.10.10, 7304.20.10.20, 7304.20.10.30, 7304.20.10.40,
7304.20.10.50, 7304.20.10.60, 7304.20.10.80, 7304.20.20.10,
7304.20.20.20, 7304.20.20.30, 7304.20.20.40, 7304.20.20.50,
7304.20.20.60, 7304.20.20.80, 7304.20.30.10, 7304.20.30.20,
7304.20.30.30, 7304.20.30.40, 7304.20.30.50, 7304.20.30.60,
7304.20.30.80, 7304.20.40.10, 7304.20.40.20, 7304.20.40.30,
7304.20.40.40, 7304.20.40.50, 7304.20.40.60, 7304.20.40.80,
7304.20.50.15, 7304.20.50.30, 7304.20.50.45, 7304.20.50.60,
7304.20.50.75, 7304.20.60.15, 7304.20.60.30, 7304.20.60.45,
7304.20.60.60, 7304.20.60.75, 7304.20.70.00, 7304.20.80.30,
7304.20.80.45, 7304.20.80.60, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90,
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10,
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.
After the publication of the preliminary determination, we found
that HTSUS item numbers 7304.20.10.00, 7304.20.20.00, 7304.20.30.00,
7304.20.40.00, 7304.20.50.10, 7304.20.50.50, 7304.20.60.10,
7304.20.60.50, and 7304.20.80.00 were no longer valid HTSUS item
numbers. Accordingly, these numbers have been deleted from the scope
definition.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Injury Test
Because Italy is a ``country under the Agreement'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') is required to determine whether imports of OCTG
from Italy materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry. On August 3, 1994, the ITC preliminarily determined that
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States
is being materially injured or threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from Italy of the subject merchandise (59 FR 42286,
August 17, 1994).
Corporate History of Respondent Dalmine
Prior to its liquidation in 1988, Finsider S.p.A. (``Finsider'')
was the holding company for all state-owned steel companies in Italy,
including Dalmine. Dalmine was an operating company wholly owned by
Finsider. After Finsider's liquidation, a new government-owned holding
company, ILVA S.p.A. (``ILVA''), was created. ILVA took over the former
Finsider companies, among them Dalmine, which became a subsidiary of
ILVA in 1989 when Finsider's shareholding in Dalmine was transferred to
ILVA.
Between 1990 and 1993, Dalmine itself was radically restructured.
Dalmine became a financial holding company, with industrial, trading,
and service shareholdings. As part of its restructuring, Dalmine made
several asset purchases, sold two of its subsidiaries to private
parties, and closed several manufacturing facilities. As of December
31, 1993, the Dalmine Group consisted of a holding company (Dalmine
S.p.A.), four wholly-owned, and one majority-owned, manufacturing
[[Page 33578]] companies, and a number of sales and service
subsidiaries.
During the POI, ILVA was owned by the Istituto per la Ricostruzione
Industriale (``IRI''), a holding company which was wholly-owned by the
GOI.
Spin-offs
In its questionnaire response, Dalmine reported that between 1990
and 1991, as part of its overall restructuring process, the company
twice sold ``productive units'' to private buyers. According to
Dalmine, these sales involved facilities that do not produce the
subject merchandise. In the preliminary determination, we determined
that the amount of potentially spun-off benefits was insignificant. We
did not learn anything at verification that would lead us to reverse
this determination. Therefore, we have not reduced the subsidies
allocated to sales of the subject merchandise. (See Final Concurrence
Memorandum dated June 19, 1995).
Equityworthiness
Petitioner has alleged that Dalmine was unequityworthy in 1989, the
year it received an indirect equity infusion from the GOI, through ILVA
S.p.A. (``ILVA''), and that the equity infusion was, therefore,
inconsistent with commercial considerations.
In accordance with Sec. 355.44(e)(1) of the Proposed Regulations
(Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for
Public Comments (``Proposed Regulations''), 54 FR 23366, May 31,
1989)), we preliminarily determined that ILVA's purchase of Dalmine's
shares was consistent with commercial considerations because Dalmine
provided evidence that private investors, unrelated to Dalmine or the
GOI, purchased a significant percentage of the 1989 equity offering, on
the same terms as ILVA. We did not learn anything at verification that
would lead us to reverse this finding. Therefore, the Department
determines that ILVA's purchase of Dalmine's shares was consistent with
commercial considerations.
Creditworthiness
Petitioner has alleged that Dalmine was uncreditworthy in every
year between 1979 and 1993. In accordance with Sec. 355.44(b)(6)(i) of
the Proposed Regulations, we preliminarily determined that Dalmine was
creditworthy from 1979 to 1993. In making this determination we
examined Dalmine's current, quick, times interest earned, and debt-to-
equity ratios, in addition to its profit margin. Specifically, although
a number of the financial indicators are weak for certain years, none
of the indicators are weak over the medium or long term, and when
examined together on a yearly basis, the indicators support the
determination that Dalmine was creditworthy in every year examined.
(See also Creditworthy Memorandum, November 18, 1994). In addition,
Dalmine received long-term, commercial loans from private lenders in
several of the years examined.
We did not learn anything new at verification that would lead us to
reconsider our preliminary determination. Therefore, we continue to
find that Dalmine was creditworthy from 1979 to 1993.
Benchmarks and Discount Rates
Dalmine did not take out any long-term, fixed-rate, lire-
denominated loans in any of the years of the government loans under
investigation. Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 355.44(b)(4) of the
Proposed Regulations, in our preliminary determination we used, as the
benchmark interest rate, the Bank of Italy reference rate which was
determined in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations:
Certain Steel Products from Italy (``Certain Steel from Italy''), 58
FR, 37327 (July 9, 1993), to be both the best approximation of the cost
of long-term borrowing in Italy and the only long-term fixed interest
rate commonly available in Italy. We also used this rate as the
discount rate for allocating over time the benefit from non-recurring
grants for the same reasons as explained in Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Spain,
58 FR 37374, 37376 (July 9, 1993).
At verification, we learned that the Bank of Italy reference rate
reflects the cost for Italian banks to borrow long-term funds.
Therefore, the reference rate does not incorporate the mark-up a bank
would charge a corporate client when making a long-term loan. Long-term
corporate interest rate data is not available in Italy. Accordingly, we
have adjusted the reference rate used in the preliminary determination
upward to reflect the mark-up an Italian bank would charge a corporate
customer.
In order to approximate this mark-up, we calculated the difference
between the average short-term corporate borrowing rate in Italy and
the average interest rate on short-term Italian government debt, for
each year in which Dalmine received long-term lire loans or non-
recurring grants from the government. We then added this mark-up to the
Italian reference rate used in the preliminary determination to
approximate an average long-term corporate benchmark interest rate. We
also used these rates as the discount rates for allocating over time
the benefit from non-recurring grants. See Certain Steel Products from
Spain, 58 FR at 37376.
For long-term loans denominated in other currencies, we used, as
the benchmark interest rate, an average long-term fixed interest rate
for loans denominated in the same currency. (See section E--Article 54
Loans below.)
Calculation Methodology
For purposes of this determination, the period for which we are
measuring subsidies (the POI) is calendar year 1993. In determining the
benefits received under the various programs described below, we used
the following calculation methodology. We first calculated the benefit
attributable to the POI for each countervailable program, using the
methodologies described in each program section below. For each
program, we then divided the benefit attributable to Dalmine in the POI
by Dalmine's total sales revenue, as none of the programs was limited
to either certain subsidiaries or products of Dalmine. Next, we added
the benefits for all programs, including the benefits for programs
which were not allocated over time, to arrive at Dalmine's total
subsidy rate. Because Dalmine is the only respondent company in this
investigation, this rate is also the country-wide rate.
Based upon our analysis of the petition, the responses to our
questionnaires, verification, and comments by interested parties, we
determine the following:
I. Programs Determined to be Countervailable
A. Benefits Provided under Law 675/77
Law 675/77 was enacted to bring about restructuring and
reconversion in the following industrial sectors: (1) Electronic
technology; (2) the manufacturing industry; (3) the agro-food industry;
(4) the chemical industry; (5) the steel industry; (6) the pulp and
paper industry; (7) the fashion sector; and (8) the automobile and
aviation sectors. Law 675/77 also sought to promote optimal
exploitation of energy resources, and ecological and environmental
recovery.
A primary goal of this legislation was to bring all government
industrial assistance programs under a single law in order to develop a
system to replace indiscriminate and random public intervention by the
GOI. Other goals [[Page 33579]] were (1) to reorganize and develop the
industrial sector as a whole; (2) to increase employment in the South;
and (3) to maintain employment in depressed areas. Among other measures
taken, the Interministerial Committee for the Coordination of
Industrial Policy (``CIPI'') was created as a result of Law 675/77.
CIPI approves individual projects in each of the industrial sectors
listed above.
Six main programs were provided under Law 675/77: (1) Interest
contributions on bank loans; (2) mortgage loans provided by the
Ministry of Industry at subsidized interest rates; (3) interest
contributions on funds raised by bond issues; (4) capital grants for
projects in the South; (5) personnel retraining grants; and (6) VAT
reductions on purchases of capital goods by companies in the South.
Dalmine reported that it received benefits under items (1), (2), and
(5) above.
In its response, the GOI asserts that the steel and automobile
industries did not receive a ``disproportionate'' share of benefits
associated with interest contributions when the extent of investment in
those industries is compared to the extent of investment in other
industries. However, in keeping with past practice, we did not consider
the level of investment in the the individual industries receiving
benefits under Law 675/77. Instead, we followed the analysis outlined
in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented
Electrical Steel from Italy (Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel), 59 FR
18357 (April 18, 1994), and Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37295, 37295
(July 9, 1993), of comparing the share of benefits received by the
steel industry to the collective share of benefits provided to other
users of the programs.
According to the information provided by the GOI, of the eight
industrial sectors eligible for benefits under Law 675/77, the two
dominant users of the interest contribution program were (1) the
Italian auto industry which accounted for 34 percent of the benefits,
and (2) the Italian steel industry which accounted for 33 percent of
the benefits. Likewise, with respect to the mortgage loans, the two
dominant users were the auto and steel industries which received 45
percent and 31 percent of the benefits, respectively.
In light of the above evidence, we determine that the steel
industry was a dominant user of both the interest contribution and the
mortgage loan programs under Law 675/77. (See section 355.43(b)(2)(iii)
of the Proposed Regulations). Therefore, we determine that benefits
received by Dalmine under these programs are being provided to a
specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries.
On this basis, we find Law 675/77 financing to be countervailable to
the extent that it is granted on terms inconsistent with commercial
considerations.
Under the interest contribution program, Italian commercial banks
provided loans to industries designated under Law 675/77. The interest
owed by the recipient companies was partially offset by interest
contributions from the GOI. Dalmine received bank loans with interest
contributions under Law 675/77 which were outstanding in the POI.
Because the GOI interest contributions were automatically available
when the loans were taken out, we consider the contributions to
constitute reductions in the interest rates charged, rather than grants
(see Certain Steel from Italy at 37335).
At verification, we established that Dalmine had repaid each of the
loans it received under this program in June 1994. We further found
that Dalmine had not yet received a portion of the interest
contributions originally owed to it by the GOI under this program, due
to delays in GOI approval of several Dalmine internal asset transfers.
Finally, we established that Dalmine had paid interest on each of the
loans during the loan grace periods, contrary to what Dalmine reported
in its questionnaire responses.
Dalmine argues that the GOI terminated the subsidized loan portion
of this program in 1982, and that Dalmine repaid each of the loans in
June 1994, after the POI, but before the publication of the preliminary
determination. Consequently, Dalmine contends, no further benefits can
accrue to Dalmine under this program. Therefore, according to Dalmine,
the Department should, in accordance with the Department's policy to
take program-wide changes into account in setting the duty deposit
rate, set Dalmine's deposit rate for this program to zero.
Contrary to Dalmine's assertion, we determine that the termination
of the subsidized loan portion of this program does not constitute a
program-wide change as defined in Sec. 355.50(b)(1) of the Proposed
Regulations. Specifically, although Dalmine has repaid the loans it
received under the program, there could be other Italian companies with
loans that are still outstanding. Therefore, despite termination of the
program in 1982, there may still be residual benefits under the
program. Under our program-wide change policy, the change at issue
cannot be limited to individual firms. Consequently, we determine that
the ``termination'' of the subsidized loan portion of this program does
not constitute a program-wide change. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Orders;
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products From Argentina
(Argentine Pipe), 53 FR 37619 (September 27, 1988); Sec. 355.50(b)(1)
of the Proposed Regulations.
Alternatively, Dalmine claims that the Department should
recalculate the benefits under this program to reflect the delayed
receipt of GOI interest contributions, as well as Dalmine's payment of
grace period interest.
With respect to the grace period, we have adjusted our calculations
to reflect that Dalmine paid interest during that time, as established
at verification. However, we are treating the interest contributions as
countervailable on the date Dalmine made the corresponding interest
payments, despite any delay in receipt by Dalmine. This is because
Dalmine's entitlement to the interest contributions was automatic when
it made the interest payments. Thus, we find, for purposes of benefit
calculation, that the interest contributions were received at the time
the interest payments were made. See Steel Wire Nails from New Zealand,
52 FR 37196 (1987).
Under the mortgage loan program, the GOI provides long-term loans
at subsidized interest rates. Dalmine received financing under this
program which was outstanding in the POI.
To determine whether these programs conferred a benefit, we
compared the effective interest rate paid by Dalmine to the benchmark
interest rate, discussed above. Based on this comparison, we determine
that the financing provided under these programs is inconsistent with
commercial considerations, i.e., on terms more favorable than the
benchmark financing.
To calculate the benefit from these programs, we used our standard
long-term loan methodology as described in Sec. 355.49(c)(1) of the
Proposed Regulations. We then divided the benefit allocated to the POI
for each program by Dalmine's total sales in 1993. On this basis, we
determine the net subsidy from these programs to be 0.46 percent ad
valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the
subject merchandise.
With respect to retraining grants provided to Dalmine under Law
675/77, it is the Department's practice to treat
[[Page 33580]] training benefits as recurring grants. (See Certain
Steel General Issues Appendix at 37226). Since the only grant reported
under this program was received by Dalmine in 1986, any benefit to
Dalmine as a result of this grant cannot be attributed to the POI.
Therefore, we determine that retraining benefits provided under Law
675/77 conferred no benefit to Dalmine during the POI.
B. Grants Under Law 193/84
According to the GOI, Articles 2, 3, and 4 of Law 193/84 provide
for subsidies to close steel plants. As stated in Art. 20 of Law N. 46
of 17/2/1982, steel enterprises, including enterprises producing
seamless pipes, welded pipes, conduits and welded pipes for water and
gas, are the recipients of these subsidies. As benefits under this
program are limited to the steel industry, we determine that Law 193/84
is de jure specific and, therefore, countervailable.
At verification, we found that Dalmine received an additional
benefit under this program not reported in its questionnaire responses.
We have included this additional benefit in our calculation of the
benefits received by Dalmine under this program.
To calculate the benefit during the POI, we used our standard grant
methodology (see Sec. 355.49(b) of the Proposed Regulations). We then
divided the benefits attributable to Dalmine under Law 193/84 in the
POI by Dalmine's total sales. On this basis, we determine the estimated
net subsidy to be 0.81 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers,
producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject merchandise.
C. Exchange Rate Guarantee Program
This program, which was enacted by Law 796/76, provides exchange
rate guarantees on foreign currency loans from the European Coal and
Steel Community (``ECSC'') and The Council of European Resettlement
Fund (``CER''). Under the program, repayment amounts are calculated by
reference to the exchange rate in effect at the time the loan is agreed
upon. The program sets a ceiling and a floor on repayment to limit the
effect on the borrower of exchange rate changes over time. For example,
if the lire depreciates five percent against the DM (the currency in
which the loan is taken out), borrowers would normally find that they
would have to repay five percent more (in lire terms). However, under
the Exchange Rate Guarantee Program, the ceiling would act to limit the
increased repayment amount to two percent. There is also a floor in the
program which would apply if the lire appreciated against the DM. The
floor would limit any windfall to the borrower.
In Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, the Department found this
program to be not countervailable because of incomplete information
regarding the specificity of the program. The Department stated that,
because the determination was reached while lacking certain important
information, the finding of non-countervailability would not carry over
to future investigations.
In this investigation, information provided by the GOI shows that
the steel industry received 25% of the benefits under the program.
Furthermore, at verification, we found that in the years Dalmine took
out loans on which it received exchange rate guarantees under this
program, the steel industry received virtually all the benefits under
the program. Based on this information, the Department determines that
the steel industry was a dominant user of exchange rate guarantees
under Law 796/76 and, thus, that benefits received by Dalmine under
this law are being provided to a specific enterprise or industry or
group of enterprises or industries. (See Sec. 355.43(b)(2)(iii) of the
Proposed Regulations). Therefore, we determine that the exchange rate
guarantees offered under the program are countervailable to the extent
they are provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
Dalmine provided information that it could have purchased an
exchange rate guarantee from commercial sources. However, Dalmine's
information pertained to 1993, not to the period when the government
guarantees were provided. The GOI's response indicates that commercial
exchange rate guarantees were not available in 1986, the year in which
the loans and the guarantees were received. Therefore, we determine the
benefit to be the total amount of payments to Dalmine made during the
POI by the GOI. (Because the amount the government will pay in any
given year will not be known until that year, benefits can only be
calculated on a year-by-year basis.) We divided the GOI's payments in
1993 by Dalmine's 1993 total sales. On this basis, we determine the
estimated net subsidy from this program to be 0.20 percent ad valorem
for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Italy of the subject
merchandise.
II. Programs Determined To Be Not Countervailable
A. 1988/89 Equity Infusion
In November 1989, Dalmine completed an equity rights offering which
allowed existing shareholders to purchase 7 new shares for every 10
shares they already owned. The new shares were offered at a price of
LIT 300 per share. At that time, ILVA owned 81.7 percent of Dalmine's
equity, with the remaining 18.3 percent owned by private investors.
Pursuant to the rights offering, ILVA subscribed to its full allotment
of the new shares issued. The remainder of the new shares were
purchased by private shareholders. All shares were purchased at LIT 300
per share.
Petitioner argues that, although Dalmine's shares were nominally
publicly traded, the vast majority of Dalmine shares were indirectly
owned by the GOI and, therefore, shares were not purchased in adequate
volume by private investors to establish a valid benchmark.
Specifically, petitioner contends that, in 1991, ILVA owned 99.9
percent of Dalmine and, therefore, Dalmine's shares were in fact not
publicly traded. Consequently, because essentially no private purchases
were being made, the market price at the time of the equity infusion
cannot serve as a valid benchmark. Furthermore, petitioner asserts that
it is highly likely that the remaining shares not purchased by ILVA
were purchased indirectly by the GOI through other holding companies.
In response to our questionnaire, Dalmine provided a list of all
purchasers of shares in the 1989 offering. There was no evidence to
indicate that the shares not purchased by ILVA were purchased by other
government controlled or owned entities, as petitioner suggests.
Moreover, the extent of ILVA's ownership in 1991 is not relevant to the
choice of a benchmark for the equity investment in 1989.
Therefore, in our preliminarily determination, we determined that,
because 18.3 percent of the equity infusion was purchased by private
shareholders, the sale of these shares provides the market-determined
price for Dalmine's equity. Furthermore, in accordance with
Sec. 355.44(e)(1) of the Department's Proposed Regulations, we
preliminarily determined that the equity infusion is not
countervailable because the market-determined price for equity
purchased from Dalmine is not less than the price paid by ILVA for the
same form of equity. We did not learn anything at verification that
would lead [[Page 33581]] us to reconsider our preliminary
determination. Therefore, we continue to find that the equity infusion
is not countervailable.
B. European Social Fund (``ESF'') Grants
The ESF was established by the 1957 European Economic Community
Treaty to increase employment and help raise worker living standards.
As described in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, the ESF receives
its funds from the EC's general budget of which the main revenue
sources are customs duties, agricultural levies, value-added taxes
collected by the member states, and other member state contributions.
The member states are responsible for selecting the projects to be
funded by the EC. The EC then disburses the grants to the member states
which manage the funds and implement the projects. According to the EC,
ESF grants are available to (1) people over 25 who have been unemployed
for more than 12 months; (2) people under 25 who have reached the
minimum school-leaving age and who are seeking a job; and (3) certain
workers in rural areas and regions characterized by industrial decline
or lagging development.
The GOI has stated that the ESF grants received by Italy have been
used for vocational training. Certain regions in the South are also
eligible for private sector re-entry and retraining schemes. Since
1990, the vocational training grants have been available to unemployed
youths and long-term unemployed adults all over Italy, according to the
GOI. Before 1990, however, the GOI gave preference to certain regions
in Italy.
In Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, we determined that this program
was not regionally specific and not otherwise limited to a specific
enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries.
Furthermore, we noted that to the extent there is a regional preference
(i.e., southern Italy) in the distribution of ESF benefits, it has not
resulted in a countervailable benefit to the production of the subject
merchandise, which is produced in northern Italy.
Information provided by the GOI in this investigation is consistent
with the information provided in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel.
Therefore, we determine that this program is not limited to a specific
enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, and
therefore, is not countervailable.
C. ECSC Article 54 Loans
Under Article 54 of the 1951 ECSC Treaty, the European Commission
provides loans directly to iron and steel companies for modernization
and the purchase of new equipment. The loans finance up to 50 percent
of an investment project. The remaining financing needs must be met
from other sources. The Article 54 loan program is financed by loans
taken by the Commission, which are then re-lent to iron and steel
companies in the member states at a slightly higher interest rate than
that at which the Commission obtained them.
Consistent with the Department's finding in Grain-Oriented
Electrical Steel, we determine that this program is limited to the iron
and steel industry. As a result, loans under this program are specific.
Of the Article 54 loans Dalmine had outstanding during the POI,
some were denominated in U.S. dollars and others were in Dutch guilders
(``NLG''). To determine whether the loans were provided on terms
inconsistent with commercial considerations, we used the benchmark
interest rates for the currencies in which the loans were denominated.
That is, for the U.S. dollar loans we used the average interest rate on
long-term fixed-rate U.S. dollar loans obtained in the United States,
as reported by the Federal Reserve. For the NLG denominated loan, we
used the average long-term bond rate for private borrowers in the
Netherlands, as reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (``OECD'').
Because the interest rates paid on Dalmine's Article 54 loans are
higher than the benchmark interest rates, the Department determines
that loans provided under this program are not inconsistent with
commercial considerations and, therefore, not countervailable.
D. 1989 Provisional Payment in Connection with 1989 Equity Infusion
In March 1989, ILVA made a payment to Dalmine in anticipation of
purchasing new shares in Dalmine. The payment was provisional in nature
because EC authorization of the capital increase was necessary and, if
authorization was not granted, the money would have been repaid to
ILVA. The capital increase was not finalized until November 1989, due
to delays in EC approval. At that time, the payment became equity
capital.
Consistent with the Department's position in Grain-Oriented
Electrical Steel, we determine that the funds provided by ILVA to
Dalmine are countervailable.
During the period March-November 1989, Dalmine had use of the money
and paid no interest on it. Therefore, we have treated the funds
provided by ILVA to Dalmine as an interest-free short-term loan from
March 1989 to November 1989.
Because any benefit from this interest-free loan would be allocable
entirely to 1989, no benefit is attributable to the POI.
III. Programs Determined To Be Not Used
We established at verification that the following programs were not
used during the POI.
1. Preferential IMI Export Financing Under Law 227/77.
2. Preferential Insurance Under Law 227/77.
3. Retraining Grants under Law 181/89.
4. Benefits under ECSC Article 56.
Verification
In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we verified the
information used in making our final determination. We followed
standard verification procedures, including meeting with government and
company officials, examination of relevant accounting records and
examination of original source documents. Our verification results are
outlined in detail in the public versions of the verification reports,
which are on file in the Central Records Unit (Room B-099 of the Main
Commerce Building).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with our affirmative preliminary determination, we
instructed the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all
entries of OCTG from Italy, which were entered or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after December 2, 1994, the date our
preliminary determination was published in the Federal Register. This
final countervailing duty determination was aligned with the final
antidumping duty determination of OCTG from Italy, pursuant to section
606 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (section 705(a)(1) of the Act).
Under article 5, paragraph 3 of the GATT subsidies Code,
provisional measures cannot be imposed for more than 120 days without a
final affirmative determination of subsidization and injury. Therefore,
we instructed the U.S. Customs Service to discontinue the suspension of
liquidation on the subject merchandise entered on or after April 1,
1995, but to continue the suspension of liquidation [[Page 33582]] of
all entries, or withdrawals from warehouse, for consumption of the
subject merchandise between November 28, 1994, and March 31, 1995. We
will reinstate suspension of liquidation under section 703(d) of the
Act, if the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, and
will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such
entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated below.
OCTG
Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate 1.47 percent
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(c) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. The ITC will make its determination whether
these imports materially injure, or threaten injury to, a U.S. industry
within 45 days of the publication of this notice. If the ITC determines
that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted as a result of
the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled. However,
if the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury
does exist, the Department will issue a countervailing duty order.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 355.34(d). Failure to
comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is published pursuant to section 705(d) of the
Act and 19 CFR 355.20(a)(4).
Dated: June 29, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-15623 Filed 6-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
