Certain Carbon Steel Products From Sweden: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-401-401]

Certain Carbon Steel Products From Sweden: Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On July 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary results

of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain

carbon steel products (``Certain Steel Products'') from Sweden for the

period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. The Department has

now completed this administrative review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). For

information on the net subsidy for each reviewed company, and for all

non-reviewed companies, please see the Final Results of Review section

of this notice. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'')

to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the Final Results of

Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tipten Troidl or Gayle Longest, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those

producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review

was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers SSAB

Svenskt Stal AB (``SSAB''). This review also covers the period January

1, 1997 through December 31, 1997 and seven programs.

We published the preliminary results on July 12, 1999 (64 FR

37507). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary

results. We received no comments from any of the parties.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to

[[Page 57039]]

the provisions of the Act as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (``URAA'') effective January 1, 1995. The Department is conducting

this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act. All citations to the Department's regulations reference 19 CFR

Part 351 (April 1998) unless otherwise indicated. Because the request

for this administrative review was filed before January 1, 1999, the

Department's substantive countervailing duty regulations, which were

published in the Federal Register on November 25, 1998 (63 FR 65348),

do not govern this review.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain carbon

steel products from Sweden. These products include cold-rolled carbon

steel, flat-rolled products, whether or not corrugated, or crimped:

whether or not pickled, not cut, not pressed and not stamped to non-

rectangular shape; not coated or pleated with metal and not clad; over

12 inches in width and of any thickness; whether or not in coils.

During the review period, such merchandise was classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item numbers 7209.11.0000,

7209.12.0000, 7209.13.0000, 7209.21.0000, 7209.22.0000, 7209.23.0000,

7209.24.5000, 7209.31.0000, 7209.32.0000, 7209.33.0000, 7209.34.0000,

7209.41.0000, 7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7211.30.5000,

7211.41.7000 and 7211.49.5000. The written description remains

dispositive.

Subsidies Value Information

Privatization and Sale of Assets to Other Companies

SSAB is the only Swedish company that produces and exports the

subject merchandise. SSAB has sold several productive units and the

company was partially privatized in 1987 and in 1989. In 1994, SSAB was

completely privatized by the Government of Sweden. Under the

Department's current practice, to the extent that a portion of the

sales price paid for a privatized company can be reasonably attributed

to prior subsidies, that portion of those subsidies will be

extinguished. Accordingly, in these final results, the Department

continues to apply its repayment methodology in the calculation of

SSAB's net subsidy rate. No comments were filed regarding this issue.

To calculate the benefit provided to SSAB in the POR, where

appropriate, we multiplied the benefit calculated for 1997, adjusted

for sales of productive units, by the ratio representing the amount of

subsidies remaining with SSAB after privatization. We then divided the

results by the company's total sales in 1997.

Allocation Methodology

In the current review, there are no new subsidies. All of the non-

recurring grants under review were provided prior to the POR;

allocation periods for these grants were established during prior

segments of this proceeding. Therefore, for purposes of these final

results, the Department is using the original allocation period

assigned to each grant. See Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden;

Final Results of Administrative Review, 66 FR 16549-16550 (April 7,

1997) (``1994 Final Results'').

Analysis of Programs

There were no comments submitted to the Department with respect to

our preliminary results of review; therefore, based upon the responses

to our questionnaire we determine the following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined to Confer Subsidies

1. Structural Loans

In the preliminary results we found that this program conferred

countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the

record has not led us to change any findings or calculations.

Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is 0.12 percent ad

valorem, which remains unchanged from the preliminary results.

2. Forgiven Reconstruction Loans

In the preliminary results we found that this program conferred

countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Our review of the

record has not led us to change any findings or calculations.

Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is 0.59 percent ad

valorem, which remains unchanged from the preliminary results.

II. Other Programs Examined

A. Research and Development Loans and Grants

In the preliminary results, we found that the Swedish National

Board for Industrial & Technical Development (``NUTEK'') program

provides loans and grants for R & D purposes to Swedish industries.

Under this program benefits from outstanding loans during the POR would

result in a rate of less than 0.005 percent ad valorem which would have

no impact on the countervailing duty rate. The grants provided did not

exceed 0.5 percent of SSAB's total sales for the year in which they

were received, and were expensed during the year of receipt See Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils from Italy 64 FR 30624, 30631 (June 8, 1999).

Therefore, it is not necessary to determine if the loans and the grants

under NUTEK are specific. Our review of the record has not led us to

change any findings or calculations. Therefore, our determination for

these programs remains unchanged.

Final Results of Review

In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we

calculated an individual subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject

to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 1997 through

December 31, 1997, we determine the net subsidy for SSAB to be 0.72

percent ad valorem.

We will instruct Customs to assess countervailing duties on entries

of subject merchandise from SSAB during the POR at 0.72 percent ad

valorem. The Department will also instruct Customs to collect a cash

deposit of estimated countervailing duties of 0.72 percent of the

f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from

SSAB entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of the final results of this review.

Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-

wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for

investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing

countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies,

are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review

will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which

a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit

rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected at the rate

previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate

applicable to a company cannot change, except pursuant to a request and

subsequent review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and

The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except the firm

[[Page 57040]]

covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for

non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-

wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit

rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this

order will be the rate for that company established in the most

recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA.

If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the

most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the

statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments

is applicable. See, Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16549

(April 7, 1997). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies

until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. In

addition, for the period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997, the

assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by

this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.

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 351.305(a)(3). 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 issued and published in

accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

Dated: October 18, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-27685 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P