Notice of Court Decision: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil, Mexico, and the United Kingdom

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[C-351-818; C-201-810; C-412-815]

Notice of Court Decision: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Brazil, Mexico, and the United Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Court Decision.

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

SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996, the United States Court of International

Trade (CIT) affirmed the remand determinations made by the Department

of Commerce (the Department) that the privatizations of Usinas

Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (USIMINAS), Altos Hornos de Mexico

(AHMSA), and British Steel plc (BS plc), respectively, were sales of

shares, and that the privatized entities continued to be, for all

intents and purposes, the same entities that had received the subsidies

prior to privatization. British Steel Plc. et al. v. United States,

Slip Op. 96-6011 (British Steel II). In so doing, the Court implicitly

rejected the Department's ``repayment'' methodology set forth in the

privatization portion of its General Issues Appendix, which is appended

to the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain

Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37259 (July 9, 1993).

EFFECTIVE DATE:May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy A. Malmrose, Office of

Countervailing Investigations, or Brian Albright, Office of

Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

5414 and (202) 482-2786 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37295 (July

9, 1993), Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain

Steel Products From Mexico 58 FR 37352 (July 9, 1993), and Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products

From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37393 (July 9, 1993), the Department

determined that subsidies provided to certain steel producers remained

countervailable after those firms were privatized. The rationale for

the Department's determinations was that the countervailing duty law

does not require, as a prerequisite for countervailability, that a

subsidy bestowed on a producer confer a demonstrable ``competitive

benefit'' on that producer. However, the Department also determined

that a portion of the sales prices for USIMINAS, AHMSA, and BS plc,

respectively, represented partial repayment of prior subsidies. The

Department's privatization methodology was fully set forth in the

General Issues Appendix.

On February 9, 1995, the CIT held that the Department's

privatization methodology was unlawful, and remanded the determinations

in question. British Steel plc et al. v. United States, 879 F. Supp.

1254. In accordance with the CIT's instructions, the Department

reexamined the privatization transactions in question. The Department

found that USIMINAS, AHMSA, and BS plc were privatized through sales of

shares, and that the privatized entities continued to be, for all

intents and purposes, the same entities that had received the subsidies

prior to privatization. On this basis, and in accordance with the CIT's

instructions, the Department determined that the pre-privatization

subsidies remained countervailable in full. The Department did not

attribute any portion of the sales price for any of the producers to a

partial repayment of prior subsidies.

On April 2, 1996, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand

determination. British Steel II. In so doing, the Court implicitly

rejected the ``repayment'' aspect of the Department's privatization

methodology, as set forth in the General Issues Appendix.

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 U.S.C. 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 decision in British

Steel II on April 2, 1996, constitutes a decision not in harmony with

the Departments final affirmative determinations. 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, until

a ``conclusive'' court decision.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-12518 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P