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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-063]

Amended Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal

Castings From India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of expedited sunset review:

iron metal castings from India.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith 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) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560,

respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1999.

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. The written description remains

dispositive.

[[Page 37510]]

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

June 1, 1999, the Department issued its final results of the sunset

review of the countervailing duty order on iron metal castings from

India (64 FR 30316), in which we determined that there was a likelihood

of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy if the order

were to be revoked. In this determination, the Department also

determined the net subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were to

be revoked.

On June 23, 1999, the Department received allegations, timely filed

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), from the Municipal Castings Fair

Trade Council and its individual members (collectively, ``domestic

industry'') that the Department made a ministerial error in its final

results. The domestic industry alleged that the Department failed to

include the subsidy rate for the International Price Reimbursement

Scheme (``IPRS'') program in its final results of the sunset review for

this case. The domestic industry, citing the Sunset Policy Bulletin,

stated that the Department normally ``will not make adjustments to the

net countervailable subsidy rate for programs that still exist, but

were modified subsequent to the order, * * * to eliminate exports to

the United States (or subject merchandise) from eligibility.'' The

domestic industry argued that Indian foundries that exported heavy

castings (subject merchandise) to the United States were simply told

not to make claims for IPRS benefits on those castings. Further, the

domestic industry argued that there has never been any termination of

the IPRS program overall, and the program continues today.

The Department received, on June 30, 1999, a submission on behalf

of the Engineering Export Promotion Council of India (``EEPC'') in

rebuttal to the ministerial error alleged by the domestic industry. The

EEPC argued that the domestic industry was incorrect in stating that

the IPRS program continues to exist. The EEPC asserted that the

Department has information on the record of the 1994 administrative

review segment of this proceeding stating that the Indian Ministry of

Commerce withdrew the IPRS, effective April 1, 1994. Further, the EEPC

states that this withdrawal applied to all exporters and all products.

On July 2, 1999, the Department received a response from the

domestic industry arguing that the EEPC has waived its right to

participate in this sunset review before the Department, pursuant to 19

CFR 351.218, and the Department should, therefore, reject the EEPC's

June 30, 1999, submission. Furthermore, the domestic industry states

that it knows of no finding that the IPRS has been terminated, with

respect to all exporters and all products.

After analyzing the domestic industry's June 23, 1999 submission,

we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that a

ministerial error was made in the final determination concerning the

IPRS program. The Department notes that the definition of a ministerial

error provides not only for the correction of errors in arithmetic but

also for ``any other similar type of unintentional error which the

Secretary considers ministerial'' (see 19 CFR 351.224(f)). In the

Department's final results of the sunset review for this case, we

excluded the IPRS program from our net subsidy calculation based on the

fact that the Department ``had verified this termination [of the IPRS

program] 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'' (see Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal Castings from India, 64 FR 30316

(June 7, 1999)). The Department's reliance on this statement for its

final determination in the sunset review was in error. As noted above,

the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin state that where a program

continues to exist, but was modified to eliminate exports to the United

States (or subject merchandise) from eligibility, the Department will

normally not make adjustments to the net countervailable subsidy rate.

The Department's decision to consider the IPRS program terminated based

upon the fact that the program had been modified to exclude exports of

heavy castings to the United States was, therefore, in error because

reliance on modification as a basis for finding a program completely

terminated is inconsistent with our Sunset Policy Bulletin.

However, based on the domestic industry's ministerial allegation

and the EEPC's reply, the Department has reexamined all relevant

information pertaining to the termination of the IPRS program. The

Department located a submission from the Indian Ministry of Commerce,

dated April 4, 1994, which demonstrates that the Government of India

has fully and completely eliminated the IPRS program (see November 19,

1996 Verification Report for Certain Iron Metal Castings from India,

Exhibit EEPC 4, placed on the record of this sunset review on July 2,

1999).1 Specifically, the Indian Ministry of Commerce states

that ``it has been decided to withdraw the International Price

Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) with effect from 01.4.1994, i.e. benefits

under the scheme would be available for eligible engineering goods

exports shipped up to [sic] 31.3.1994 only.'' (Id.) Consistent with our

Sunset Policy Bulletin (see section III.B.3.a), this evidence of the

complete and total withdrawal of the IPRS program is the appropriate

basis for the Department's finding that the IPRS program is terminated.

The Department's correction of its ministerial error, i.e., the

appropriate basis for its termination finding, does not change the net

subsidy rate reported in the original final determination of this

sunset review.2

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

\1\ In addition, the Department has placed on the record of this

sunset review all relevant information concerning the termination of

the IPRS program. This information can be found in the public sunset

file of this review in Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main

Commerce building.

\2\ Furthermore, the Department can confirm that no residual

benefits exist from this program to Indian producers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United States (see the 1996 and the

1997 Verification Report of Iron Metal Castings from India, placed

on the record of this sunset review on July 2, 1999).

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

With respect to the domestic industry's argument that, pursuant to

19 CFR 351.218, the Department should reject the June 30, 1999,

submission of the EEPC, the Department disagrees. Section

351.218(d)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations provides that if a

respondent interested party waives participation in the sunset review

before the Department (as the EEPC did), the Department will not accept

or consider any unsolicited submissions from that party during the

course of the review. The EEPC's submission, however, was not made

during the course of the sunset review. Rather, the EEPC filed a reply

to ministerial error comments made by the domestic industry after the

Department had issued its final determination in the sunset review.

Section 351.224 of the Act outlines the procedures for the

correction of ministerial errors. Specifically, section 351.224(c)(3)

of the Act, states that ``replies to comments filed under (c)(1) of

this section must be filed within five days after the date on which

comments were filed with the Secretary.'' This regulation does not

limit who may file

[[Page 37511]]

replies to ministerial error allegations.3 Because the

submission from the EEPC is timely filed, pursuant to section

351.224(c)(3) of the Act, we have accepted it. Finally, contrary to

arguments raised by the domestic industry, acceptance of the EEPC's

submission does not result in an inference adverse to the domestic

industry; rather the EEPC's submission relates important factual

information that is already on the record of this proceeding, i.e., in

the 1994 administrative review segment. For these reasons, therefore,

the Department finds no reason to reject the EEPC's June 30, 1999,

submission.

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

\3\ While there are no limitations on who may file replies to

ministerial error allegations, the regulations do provide that only

a ``party to the proceeding'' may file ministerial error

allegations. See 19 CFR 351.224(c)(1) and 19 CFR 351.102 (defining

``party to the proceeding'')

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

Amended Final Results of Review

For the reasons stated above, the Department continues to find that

revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates

listed in the Department's final determination of the sunset review of

this case (see Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal

Castings from India, 64 FR 30316 (June 7, 1999)).

This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: July 6, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-17643 Filed 7-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P