Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal Castings From India

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