Final Results of the 1992 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Ferrochrome From South Africa

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-791-001]

Final Results of the 1992 Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review; Ferrochrome From South Africa

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty Administrative

Review.

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

SUMMARY: On December 13, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results

of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on

ferrochrome from South Africa for the period January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992 (see 61 FR 65546) (Preliminary Results). We have

completed this review and determine the net subsidy to be zero percent

ad valorem for all companies. The Department will instruct the Customs

Service to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, all

shipments of the subject merchandise from South Africa exported on or

after January 1, 1992, and on or before December 31, 1992.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Office 1, Group I,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

4087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 13, 1996, the Department published in the Federal

Register the Preliminary Results. The Department has now completed this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act).

We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary

Results. Respondents Consolidated Metallurgical Industries, Ltd. (CMI),

Ferralloys Limited (Ferralloys) and Samancor Ltd. (Samancor), producers

of the subject merchandise which exported ferrochrome to the United

States during the review period, submitted a case brief on January 22,

1997. No case brief was submitted by the Macalloy Corporation

(petitioner).

This review covers three producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise

[[Page 24638]]

(CMI, Ferralloys, and Samancor), which account for all exports of the

subject merchandise to the United States from South Africa, and eight

programs. One company, Chromecorp Technology (PTY) Ltd. (Chromecorp),

reported having no exports to the United States during the review

period; therefore, we did not include Chromecorp in this review (see

the Preliminary Results).

Applicable Statute

The Department is conducting this administrative review in

accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act). 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.

Scope of Review

The imported product covered by this review is ferrochrome from

South Africa which is currently classifiable under items 7202.41.00,

7202.49.10 and 7202.49.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope

of this proceeding remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

Respondents received countervailable benefits only with respect to

one program. We weight-averaged the rate received by each company for

this program, including companies with de minimis and zero rates, by

that company's share of total exports of ferrochrome to the United

States (see Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F. Supp.

431 (CIT 1994)). We then summed the individual companies' weighted-

averaged rates to determine the total subsidy rate benefitting exports

of subject merchandise to the United States. The benefits received

under this program were so small (0.003 percent) as to render a zero ad

valorem subsidy rate, when rounded. Therefore, the total country-wide

rate is zero percent ad valorem. Since the country-wide rate was zero,

no further calculations were necessary.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon our analysis of respondents' questionnaire responses and

written comments from the interested parties, we determine the

following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Regional Industrial Development Incentives: Subsidy on Housing for

Key Personnel

In the Preliminary Results we found that this program conferred

benefits on the subject merchandise of 0.003 percent which, when

rounded, gives an ad valorem subsidy rate of zero percent. We received

no comments by the interested parties. Therefore, we have not changed

our findings from the Preliminary Results.

II. Programs Found Not To Be Used

Our analysis of the comments submitted by the interested parties,

summarized below, has led us to change the status of the following

program from a program conferring subsidies to a program not used with

respect to exports of subject merchandise to the United States:

A. Category A of the EIP (see comment, below).

In addition, in the Preliminary Results we found that the producers

and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under the following programs:

B. Industrial Development Corporation Loans;

C. Export Incentive Program, Categories B, C and D;

D. Regional Industrial Development Incentives;

(1) Labor Incentive;

(2) Interest Concession;

E. Preferential Rail Rates;

F. Government Loan Guarantees;

G. Beneficiation Allowances--Electric Power Cost Aid Scheme;

H. General Export Incentive Scheme;

I. Rail Transport Rebate on Outgoing Goods (subprogram of the

Regional Industrial Development Incentives).

We received no comments regarding these programs from the

interested parties. Therefore, we have not changed our findings in the

Preliminary Results.

Analysis of Comments

Comment

Respondents argue that the Department does not have to rely on GOSA

oversight in order to achieve the requisite assurance that Category A

benefits were limited to non-U.S. exports, as required by the GOSA.

Instead, respondents point out that the Department has other means at

its disposal with which to assure itself, including the option to

conduct verification. Respondents also state that the decision to

require GOSA oversight is contrary to the Department's policy of

preferring to rely upon primary evidence from respondents above

secondary evidence from the foreign governments. In addition, according

to respondents, the decision ignored the evidence already on the record

which clearly indicated that Category A benefits were tied to non-U.S.

exports. Nevertheless, should the Department continue to require

government oversight, the information submitted by respondents should

demonstrate that there was sufficient GOSA oversight of Category A

claims to ensure that the allocated benefits were tied solely to

exports to countries other than the United States.

DOC Response

We agree with respondents that government oversight of claims under

a program whose benefits are allocated to exports in general is not

necessarily required for a determination that the benefits are tied to

specific markets. However, it is essential that any such tying of

benefits be done by the government at time of bestowal (see General

Issues Appendix, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Steel Products From Austria (58 FR 37217 at 37232 (July 9,

1993)).

The record in this case shows that the producers of the subject

merchandise were required by the GOSA to refrain from claiming Category

A benefits on exports to the United States. In addition, other

information on the record, including evidence of GOSA oversight of

Category A claims, demonstrates sufficiently that the producers did not

claim or receive benefits on exports to the United States pursuant to

the GOSA's requirement. Therefore, we determine that the benefits

received were tied to markets other than the United States at the time

of bestowal and, accordingly, that Category A was not used with respect

to exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Final Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, we

determine the net subsidy to be zero percent ad valorem for all

companies. The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, all shipments of

subject merchandise exported on or after January 1, 1992 and entered on

or before December 31, 1992. Because the countervailing duty order was

revoked effective January 1, 1995 (see Revocation of Countervailing

Duty Orders (60 FR 40568, August 9, 1995)) pursuant to section 753 of

the Act, as amended by the Uruguay Round

[[Page 24639]]

Agreements Act, no other instructions will be sent to the U.S. Customs

Service.

This notice serves as a 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 355.34(d). Timely written notification of

return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.

Dated: April 29, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-11757 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P