[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30316-30320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-063]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal Castings
From India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal
Castings from India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty
order on iron metal castings from India (63 FR 58709) pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On
the basis of a notice of intent to participate and substantive comments
filed on behalf of the domestic parties, as well as inadequate response
(in this case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the
Department determined to conduct an expedited (120 day) review. As a
result of this review, the Department finds that termination of the
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable
subsidy and the nature of the subsidy are identified in the ``Final
Results of Review'' section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason M. Appelbaum or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050 or (202) 482-1560,
respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (``Sunset'')
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in 19 CFR Part 351 (1998)
in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to
the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the
Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of
Five-Year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy
Bulletin'').
Scope
The merchandise subject to this countervailing duty order are
shipments of manhole covers and frames, clean-out covers and frames,
and catch basin grates and frames from India. These articles are
commonly called municipal or public works castings and are used for
access or drainage for public utility, water, and sanitary systems.
These articles must be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not malleable.
This merchandise is currently classifiable under item numbers
7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for
convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. We note that, in their
substantive response, the domestic parties limit their description of
the subject merchandise to HTSUS item number 7325.10.0010, which refers
specifically to so-called ``heavy'' castings. The written description
remains dispositive.
History of the Order
On August 20, 1980, the Department issued a final affirmative
countervailing duty determination with respect to imports of certain
iron construction castings from India.1 In the final
determination the Department found an ``all others'' estimated net
subsidy of 13.33 percent ad valorem during the review period based on
four programs: 12.5 percent under the Cash Compensatory System program,
0.4 percent under the preferential export financing program, 0.4
percent under the tax deductions under the export marketing allowance
program, and 0.3 percent under the market development assistance
program. Receipt of benefits under each of these programs was
contingent upon exports. The Department also found the following net
countervailable subsidy rates for the following five companies: Uma
Iron & Steel--16.8 percent, RB Agarwalla--14.9 percent, Basant Udyog--
13.8 percent, Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works--13.1 percent, and Kajaria
Exports--12.9 percent. Additionally, the Department determined an ``all
others'' rate of 13.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Countervailing Duties--Certain Iron Metal Castings From
India; Final Countervailing Duty Determination, 45 FR 55502 (August
20, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 1980, the Department issued a countervailing duty
order which confirmed the subsidy rates found in the original
investigation.2 The cash deposit rate was subsequently
revised by the Department to take into account program-wide changes in
the Cash Compensatory Support program, which reduced the program-
specific subsidy from 12.5 percent to 5.0 percent.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Countervailing
Duty Order, 45 FR 68650 (October 16, 1980).
\3\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Adjustment of
Countervailing Duty Deposit Rate, 46 FR 38398 (July 27, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the issuance of the order, the Department has conducted 14
administrative reviews covering the four countervailable programs from
the original investigation and 10 other
[[Page 30317]]
programs which were found to be countervailable.4 Over the
course of these 14 administrative reviews, the Department has also
reviewed 22 additional companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 48 FR 56092
(December 19, 1983); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final
Results of Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR
40943 (October 18, 1984); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR
45788 (December 22, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Amendment to Final Results of Countervailing Administrative Review
in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 53 FR 37014 (September 23,
1988); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 50747 (December 10,
1990); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review;
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 1976 (January 18,
1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review;
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 41658 (August 22,
1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review;
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 52515 (October 21,
1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review;
Certain Iron Metal Casting From India, 56 FR 52521 (October 21,
1991); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 44849 (August 29,
1995); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843 (August 29,
1995); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64687 (December 6,
1996); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Amended Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 590 (January 3,
1997); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676 (December 6,
1996); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 32297 (June 13,
1997); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Amended Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review in Accordance With
Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR 67858 (December 9, 1998); and Certain
Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results and Partial Rescission
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 64050 (November
18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the third administrative review, covering the period January 1,
1984 to December 31, 1984, the Department found that two new
countervailable programs existed and were conferring
benefits.5 The first program, the International Price
Reimbursement Scheme (``IPRS'') was determined to be a direct export
subsidy conferring benefits of 6.54 percent. The second new
countervailable program, tax deduction for exporters under section
80HHC, was determined to confer benefits of 0.02 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 35676
(October 7, 1986); Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 45788
(December 22, 1986); and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India;
Amendment to Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 53 FR 37014
(September 23, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the next administrative review, the Department found another
countervailable export subsidy under a post-shipment export financing
program operated by the Reserve Bank of India. The Department
determined, in the final results of this administrative review, that
countervailable benefits of 0.98 percent were being given under this
program.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 12702
(April 5, 1990); Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 50747
(December 10, 1990); and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India;
Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR 67858 (December 9,
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the administrative review covering the period January 1, 1987 to
December 31, 1987, the Department found the sale of replenishment
licenses to provide a countervailable subsidy because exporters receive
the licenses based on their status as exporters. This program, benefits
through the sale of import licenses, was determined to provide a
countervailable subsidy of 0.01 percent.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR
41654 (August 22, 1991) and Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR
52515 (October 21, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the next administrative review, covering the period January 1,
1988 to December 31, 1988, the Department found that producers of
castings were receiving benefits through the sale of additional
licenses and that these benefits were 0.35 percent.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR
41650 (August 22, 1991) and Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR
52521 (October 21, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the administrative review covering the period January 1, 1993 to
December 31, 1993, the Department determined that three new
countervailable programs existed. Benefits were being provided under
post-shipment export financing denominated in foreign currency at a
rate of 1.25 percent, under an exemption of export credit for interest
taxes at a rate of 0.06 percent, and under an advanced license through
the Liberalized Exchange Rate Management System (``LERMS'') at a rate
of 0.33 percent.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 25623
(May 22, 1996) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676
(December 6, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the Department, in the administrative review for the period
January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994, found two new countervailable
programs: pre-shipment credit in foreign currency and payment of
premium against advance license. Because receipt of benefits under both
of these programs were contingent upon export performance, the
Department found both programs were export subsidies. However, the
Department determined that the benefits under both programs were zero
percent.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64669
(December 6, 1996) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 32297
(June 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the Department's findings of new countervailable
programs over the life of the order, the Department has also found that
five programs have been terminated since the issuance of the order. Of
the programs from the original investigation, two programs, the Cash
Compensatory Support program and the income tax deductions under the
export market development allowance, were both found to be terminated.
The Cash Compensatory Support program was determined to have been
terminated by the GOI on July 3, 1991.11 The Department
stated in the final results of the reviews covering 1990 and 1991, that
India's Ministry of Commerce terminated the Cash Compensatory Support
program as of July 3, 1991. In our position in responses to Comment 2
in final determination notice related to 1991, we explained that we
disagreed with the petitioners assertion that the program was merely
suspended. Rather, we noted that the India Ministry of Commerce
announcement concluded that the program was terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843 (August
29, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final results of the 1982 administrative review, the
Department stated that the Income Tax Deduction Under the Export
Markets Development Allowance program was terminated.12
Specifically, the Department noted that on May 13, 1983, the Indian
government published in the Gazette of India the Finance Act of 1983,
which included an amendment to Article 35B. Effective April 1, 1983, no
income tax benefits
[[Page 30318]]
were available for expenditures incurred after March 1, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 49 FR 32279
(August 16, 1984) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 49 FR 40943
(October 18, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three other programs that were instituted after the completion of
the original investigation were also found to subsequently be
terminated. The IPRS program was found to have been terminated as of
June 30, 1987.13 The Department verified this termination by
examining a circular from the Indian Ministry of Commerce which stated
that claims were not to be made on exports of castings to the United
States and, as such, the Department determined that this constituted
termination of the program. Additionally, the Department determined
that benefits under the LERMS program were terminated as of February
28, 1993 and that benefits under the program of post-shipment export
financing denominated in foreign currency were terminated effective
February 8, 1996 by the GOI.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 41658 (August
22, 1991).
\14\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676 (December
6, 1996) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
63 FR 64050 (November 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review covers all producers and exporters of iron metal
castings from India.
Background
On November 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the countervailing duty order on iron metal castings from India (63 FR
58709), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received
a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of the Municipal Castings
Fair Trade Council (``MCFTC'') and its individual members 15
(collectively ``the domestic parties''), on November 17, 1998, within
the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. We received a complete substantive response on behalf of
the domestic parties on December 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline
specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). The
individual members of the MCFTC claimed interested party status as
manufacturers of domestic like products and MCFTC claimed interested
party status as a trade association representing the domestic parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The MCFTC is comprised of Allegheny Foundry Company,
Bingham & Taylor, Deeter Foundry Inc., East Jordan Iron Works, Inc.,
LeBaron Foundry, Inc., Municipal Castings, Inc., Neenah Foundry
Company, Tyler Pipe, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. The
domestic parties stated that only so-called ``heavy'' castings are
subject to the order. Since Bingham & Taylor and Tyler Pipe are
manufacturers of so-called ``light'' castings only, they would not
be interested parties in this review. However, since the order does
cover both heavy and light castings, these two companies would be
interested parties in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also received a statement of waiver from the
Engineering Export Promotion Council (``EEPC'') of India on December 1,
1998. We did not receive a response from the Government of India
(``GOI''). Therefore, since the Department did not receive a
substantive response from any respondent interested party and pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an
expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
The Department determined that the sunset review of the
countervailing duty order on iron metal castings from India is
extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v)
of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily
complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in
effect on January 1, 1995). (See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.)
Therefore, on March 2, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of the final results of this review until not later than
June 1, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Iron Metal Castings From India: Extension of Time Limit
for Final Results of Five-Year Review, 64 FR 10992 (March 8, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether termination of the
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Section 752(b) of the Act
provides that, in making this determination, the Department shall
consider the net countervailable subsidy determined in the
investigation and subsequent reviews, and whether any change in the
program which gave rise to the net countervailable subsidy has occurred
that is likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy. Pursuant to
section 752(b)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide to the
International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the net
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked. In
addition, consistent with section 752(a)(6), the Department shall
provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the
subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable
subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked, and nature of the
subsidy are discussed below. In addition, the domestic parties'
comments with respect to each of these issues are addressed within the
respective sections.
Continuation or Recurrence of a Countervailable Subsidy
Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No.
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on
methodological and analytical issues, including the basis for
likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section III.A.2
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally
will determine that revocation of a countervailing duty order is likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy
where (a) a subsidy program continues, (b) a subsidy program has been
only temporarily suspended, or (c) a subsidy program has been only
partially terminated (see section III.A.3.a of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin). Exceptions to this policy are provided where a company has a
long record of not using a program (see section III.A.3.b of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin).
In addition to considering guidance on likelihood provided in the
Sunset Policy Bulletin and legislative history, section 751(c)(4)(B) of
the Act provides that the Department shall determine that revocation of
an order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a
countervailable subsidy where a respondent interested party waives its
participation in the sunset review. According to the Sunset Regulations
and the SAA at 881, in a review of a countervailing duty order where
the foreign government has waived participation, the Department shall
conclude that respondent interested parties have provided inadequate
response to the notice of initiation and will normally determine that
revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.17 In the instant
review, the Department did not receive a substantive response from the
GOI.
[[Page 30319]]
Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this
constitutes a waiver of participation. Further, the EEPC submitted a
statement of waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their substantive response, the domestic parties argue that it
is likely that a countervailable subsidy would continue to be provided
to manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise if the
countervailing duty order were revoked. (See December 2, 1998
Substantive Response of the domestic parties at 42.) The domestic
parties state that the record demonstrates that, since the imposition
of the countervailing duty order, the GOI has continued to provide
subsidies to producers/exporters of castings. Further, the domestic
parties argue that the manner in which the GOI ended certain key
subsidies could result in easy reinstatement. Finally, the domestic
parties state that when some subsidy programs are found to be
countervailable, other subsidy programs are introduced in their place.
The domestic parties discuss two specific subsidy programs of the
Government of India: the International Price Reimbursement Scheme
(IPRS) and the Cash Compensatory Support Program (CCS). According to
the domestic parties, the GOI's handling of these two programs is
indicative of the way in which the GOI responds to a determination by
the Department that a program is countervailable. First, in regards to
the IPRS program, the domestic parties argue that, after the Department
determined that the program provided a countervailable subsidy the EEPC
(a quasi-governmental entity or trade association representing
exporters of the subject castings) implemented a plan whereby
producers/exporters of heavy castings were asked not to make further
claims against exports of heavy castings to the United States as of
July 1, 1987. (See December 2, 1998 Substantive Response of the
domestic parties at 45-46.) The domestic parties argue that this
cessation of claims against the IPRS program was only for heavy
castings and, since it was not brought about by government legislation,
regulation, or decree, the program can be resumed at any time.
Additionally, the domestic parties argue that the CCS program may
also be easily reinstated should the order be revoked. According to the
domestic parties, the CCS program was not terminated by an official
act. Therefore, it can be restarted rather easily in the event that
this order were revoked. Finally, the domestic parties argue that the
Department, in its most recent administrative review, found 12 programs
that were currently not in use, but that have not been terminated, thus
leaving open the possibility that these programs may be resumed should
the order be revoked.
In conclusion, the domestic parties argue that the Department
should find that there is a likelihood that a countervailable subsidy
would continue if the order were revoked.
The Sunset Policy Bulletin, at section III.A.3.a, states that,
consistent with the SAA at 888, continuation of a program will be
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
countervailable subsidies. Temporary suspension or partial termination
of a subsidy program also will be probative of continuation or
recurrence of countervailable subsidies, absent significant evidence to
the contrary. Additionally, the Sunset Policy Bulletin provides that,
where a program has been officially terminated by the foreign
government, this will be probative of the fact that the program will
not continue or recur if the order is revoked. (See Sunset Policy
Bulletin at section III.A.5.)
We agree with the domestic parties that Indian producers/exporters
continue to benefit from several countervailable subsidy programs. The
Department, in its most recent administrative review, determined that
there are six countervailable programs currently in use and also listed
13 programs that were found not to be used.18 As stated
above, the continued use of a program is highly probative of the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies
if the order were revoked. Additionally, the presence of programs that
have not been used, but have also not been terminated, is also
probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a
countervailable subsidy. Therefore, because there are countervailable
programs that are currently being used and others that remain in
existence, the foreign government and other respondent interested
parties waived their right to participate in this review before the
Department, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the
Department determines that it is likely that a countervailable subsidy
will continue if the order were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results
and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
63 FR 64050 (November 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Countervailable Subsidy
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will
select a rate from the investigation, because that is the only
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters and foreign
governments without the discipline of an order or suspension agreement
in place. The Department went on to clarify that this rate may not be
the most appropriate if, for example, the rate was derived from subsidy
programs which were found in subsequent reviews to be terminated, there
has been a program-wide change, or the rate ignores a program found to
be countervailable in a subsequent review. Additionally, where the
Department determined company-specific countervailing duty rates in the
original investigation, the Department normally will report to the
Commission company-specific rates from the original investigation or
where no company-specific rate was determined for a company, the
Department normally will provide to the Commission the country-wide or
``all others'' rate. (See Sunset Policy Bulletin at section III.B.2.)
The domestic parties, citing the Sunset Policy Bulletin, state that
the Department should select, as the net countervailable subsidy likely
to prevail, the company-specific and ``all others'' rates from the
original investigation.
The Department disagrees with the domestic parties' argument
concerning the net countervailable subsidy rate that is likely to
prevail. As stated above, the Sunset Policy Bulletin does state that
the Department will normally choose the rate from the investigation,
since this is the only rate that reflects how a foreign government and
exporters will act without the discipline of an order in place.
However, the Sunset Policy Bulletin also provides that adjustments may
be made to the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail where
programs have either been terminated or where new programs have been
added. As the domestic parties noted in their substantive response, new
programs have been added and some programs have been terminated over
the life of the order. Specifically, the Department, through the
process of administrative reviews, has determined that four programs
have been terminated. These programs--`` the Cash Compensatory Support
program (CCS), the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS), the
Income Tax Deductions Under the Export Market Development Allowance
program, the Imports Made Under an Advance License Through the
Liberalized Exchange Rate Management System (LERMS) program, and the
Post Shipment Export Financing Denominated in Foreign Currency
[[Page 30320]]
(PSCFC) program--`` have all been found to be terminated, with no
residual benefits.19 Therefore, pursuant to the Sunset
Policy Bulletin the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail has
been adjusted to reflect the termination of these programs. The net
countervailable subsidy has also been adjusted to account for new
programs identified during administrative reviews.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ For information concerning program terminations Certain
Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843 (August 29, 1995); Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal
Castings From India, 56 FR 41658 (August 22, 1991); Certain Iron
Metal Castings From India; Preliminary Results of Administrative
Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 32779 (August 16, 1984);
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of
Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 40943
(October 18, 1984); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676
(December 6, 1996); and Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 63 FR 64050 (November 18, 1998) respectively.
For the case of the income tax deductions (the preliminary and final
results published in 1984) the comment by the Department regarding
the termination of this program is found in the preliminary results
and is reaffirmed in the final results.
\20\ For new programs Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR
45788 (December 22, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Amendment to Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 53 FR 37014
(September 23, 1988); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51
FR 35676 (October 7, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR
45788 (December 22, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55
FR 12702 (April 5, 1990); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR
50747 (December 10, 1990); Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India,
56 FR 29626 (June 28, 1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR
41658 (August 22, 1991); Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR
41654 (August 22, 1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR
52515 (October 21, 1991); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
64676 (December 6, 1996); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India;
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61
FR 64669 (December 6, 1996); and Certain Iron Metal Castings From
India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
62 FR 32297 (June 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of changes in programs since the imposition of the
countervailing duty order, the Department has determined that using the
net countervailable subsidy rates, as determined in the original
investigation, is no longer appropriate. Rather, we have adjusted the
company-specific and ``all others'' countervailing duty rates from the
original investigation by adding in the rates from the first time a new
program was used and subtracting out the subsidy rates from programs
that have been terminated. (See Memorandum to File regarding
calculation of the net countervailable subsidy.) As a result, the
Department will report to the Commission the rates as contained in the
Final Results of Review section of this notice.
Nature of the Subsidy
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will
provide information to the Commission concerning the nature of the
subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. The domestic parties did not
specifically address this issue.
Because receipt of benefits provided by the GOI's countervailable
programs are contingent upon exports, these programs fall within the
definition of export subsidies under Article 3.1(A) of the Subsidies
Agreement.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uma Iron & Steel........................................... 1.76
R.B. Agarwalla & Co........................................ 0.84
Basant Udyog............................................... 1.82
Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works................................ 1.82
Kajaria Exports............................................ 0.84
All others................................................. 1.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations.
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-14340 Filed 6-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
