Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium; Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-423-806]

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium; Amended Final

Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Eva Temkin, Group II,

Office of CVD/AD 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.

[[Page 18002]]

SUMMARY: On March 16, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register its final results of administrative

review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel

plate from Belgium for the period January 1, 1996 through December 31,

1996 (64 FR 12982) (Final Results). Subsequent to the publication of

the Final Results, we received comments from the petitioners alleging

various ministerial errors. After analyzing the comments submitted, we

are amending our final results to correct certain ministerial errors.

Based on the correction of these ministerial errors, we have changed

the net subsidy for Fabriqure de Fer de Charleroi, S.A. (Fafer). We

will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess countervailing duties

as detailed in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995 (the

Act). In addition, all citations to the Department's regulations

reference 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

On March 16, 1999, the Department published the final results of

its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-

length carbon steel plate from Belgium for the period January 1, 1996

through December 31, 1996 (64 FR 12982). After publication of our Final

Results, we received timely allegations from petitioners that we had

made ministerial errors in calculating the final results. We also

received timely rebuttal comments from the respondent.

A summary of the allegation and rebuttal comments along with the

Department's response is included below. We corrected our calculations,

where we agree that we made ministerial errors, in accordance with

section 751(h) of the Act.

Clerical Error Allegation

Allegation: Petitioners allege that we inadvertently allocated the

two grants received by Fafer's affiliate, Parachevement et Finitions de

Metaux (PFM), over the average useful life (AUL) of Fafer's assets

rather than properly expensing them in the year of receipt. Petitioners

cite the General Issues Appendix appended to Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products From Austria

(GIA), 58 FR 37217, 37226 (July 9, 1993) (proposed 19 C.F.R. section

355.49(a)(3)(i)(A)) and state that under the Department's standard

grant methodology, the sum of grants provided under a particular

domestic subsidy program in a given year are expensed in the year in

which the grant was provided when this sum is less than 0.50 percent of

the firm's total sales. Petitioners further cite the Department's

comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public

Comments (1989 Proposed Regulations), 54 FR 37217, which state that the

``purpose of this rule is to avoid any anomalies caused by the

interaction of the Department's allocation formula and the de minimis

rule'' * * * See 54 FR 23376 (May 31, 1989).

Petitioners assert that PFM received two grants under the 1970 Law

in 1996 and that these benefits are 0.425 percent of Fafer's domestic

sales in 1996. Therefore, petitioners contend that these grants should

be expensed in the year of receipt.

In rebuttal, the respondent, Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi (Fafer),

argues that the issues raised by petitioners in its allegation are not

a ministerial matter, but rather a methodological approach to

calculations by the Department. The respondent cites the Department's

regulations at 19 C.F.R. 351.224, which define a ministerial error as,

``an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function,

clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the

like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the

Secretary considers ministerial.'' The respondent asserts that the

Department used its discretion in the final results and correctly

calculated the benefit by expensing a portion of the benefits in this

case rather than expensing the entire benefit during the period of

review. Fafer contends that the Department chose this calculation

methodology to avoid significant substantive anomalies that would

result from expensing the entire benefit during the 1996 review period,

a distortively high countervailing duty rate.

The respondent cites Final Rule; Countervailing Duties, 63 FR 65358

(November 25, 1998) (Final Rule) which states that the Department will

normally expense grant amounts for a program in the year that they were

given, if those amounts are less than 0.5 percent of the total value of

sales for that year. The respondent maintains that the 0.5 test is an

exception to the general rule of allocating non-recurring grants which

is applied to reduce the administrative burden in cases where the

impact is minuscule. The respondent asserts that the Department has the

discretion to apply the 0.5 test on a case by case basis and in this

case has chosen to use its general practice of allocating non-recurring

grants over the AUL instead. The respondent argues that there is no

administrative burden in this case because the calculations have been

completed. Moreover, to change the allocation methodology would have a

significant impact on Fafer's countervailing duty rate which would no

longer be de minimis and would result in a duty being assessed for the

POR.

In response to petitioners' assertion that the purpose of using the

0.5 percent test is to avoid anomalies between the allocation formula

and the de minimis rule, the respondent argues that the only anomaly

created would be from expensing these grants in a given year which

would result in an affirmative countervailing duty rate rather than a

de minimis one. The respondent argues that this is not the correct

application of the 0.5 percent test exception for the allocation of

grants. The respondent contends that the Department chose the

calculation methodology which had no distortive effects.

Furthermore, the respondent argues that PFM's benefits should not

be expensed in total during the review period, because, notwithstanding

petitioners' claim that PFM's grants benefitted the subject

merchandise, PFM did not in any way affect merchandise attributed to

Fafer that was imported into the United States. Therefore, if PFM's

benefits are attributed to Fafer, respondent argues that they should be

calculated on the same basis as the calculations applied to Fafer.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the

Department made a ministerial error and should have expensed PFM's

grants in the 1996 review period. We have changed the net subsidy rate

accordingly. In the Final Results, the Department stated that it

``employed the standard grant allocation methodology'' as explained in

the GIA, with respect to the grants received by S.A. Charleroi

Deroulage (CD) and PFM. See 64 FR at 12984, citing GIA. However,

inconsistent with the GIA and our application of the standard grant

methodology throughout this proceeding, we inadvertently failed to

apply the 0.50 percent test to the CD and PFM grants, and,

consequently, allocated these grants over Fafer's AUL. Therefore, to

correct this ministerial error, we applied this test and found

[[Page 18003]]

that the 1993 and 1996 grants were less than 0.50 percent of total

domestic sales in the year that they were given. As a result, we have

expensed the sum of PFM's grants provided in 1996 and included the

total benefit of 0.42 percent ad valorem in the net subsidy rate for

the 1996 review period. Moreover, we have determined that the grant

provided in 1993 to Fafer's other affiliate, CD, would have been

expensed in the 1993 review period and have not included CD's 1993

benefit in the net subsidy rate for the 1996 POR.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of the amended net subsidy calculations, we determine

the net subsidy for Fafer to be 0.69 percent ad valorem for the period

January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996.

We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess

countervailing duties of 0.69 percent ad valorem on shipments of the

subject merchandise from Fafer exported on or after January 1, 1996,

and on or before December 31, 1996. The Department will also instruct

Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties of

0.69 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the

subject merchandise from Fafer as amended by this determination. The

amended deposit requirements are effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice and

shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the

next administrative 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 section 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 can no longer change, except

pursuant to a request for a 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 those covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of

this amended final results of administrative 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 Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Steel Products From Belgium 58 FR 37273. 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, 1996 through December 31, 1996, 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 section 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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and

19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(7)).

Dated: April 6, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-9194 Filed 4-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P