NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
(C-412-815)
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of
Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty
Determination: Certain Steel Products From the United Kingdom
Monday, December 7, 1992
*57734
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1992.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Stephanie L. Hager or Annika L. O'Hara,
Office of Countervailing Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3099,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482- 5055 or 482-0588, respectively.
Preliminary Determination and Alignment
The Department preliminarily determines that benefits which constitute subsidies
within the meaning of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in the United
Kingdom (UK) of certain steel products.
For information on the estimated net subsidies, please see the Suspension of
Liquidation section of this notice.
On November 24, 1992, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act) (19 U.S.C. 1671d(a)(1)), petitioners in the
above-referenced investigation requested that we align the due date for the final
countervailing duty determination with that of the final antidumping duty
determination for certain steel products. Accordingly, we are aligning these final
determinations. Therefore, the final countervailing duty determination is now
due not later than April 12, 1993.
Case History
Since the publication of the notice of initiation and postponement of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register (57 FR 32970, July 24, 1992), the following
events have occurred.
On August 10, 1992, we issued a questionnaire to the UK Government. On August
20, 1992, we received a partial response from the UK Government indicating the
proper responding companies in this investigation.
On October 5, 1992, we received responses from the UK Government and British
Steel plc (BS plc). We issued a supplemental/deficiency questionnaire to
respondents on October 22, 1992. On November 11, 1992, we received responses
to this questionnaire.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation, certain steel products, constitute one
"class or kind" of merchandise, as found in Appendix 1 to this notice: certain
cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
Injury Test
Because the United Kingdom is a "country under the Agreement" within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the certain steel products from
the United Kingdom materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry. On August 21, 1992, the ITC preliminarily determined that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or
threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the United
*57735
Kingdom of the subject merchandise (57 FR 38064, August 21, 1992).
The UK Government, the Commission of the European Communities (EC), and BS
plc are respondents for the class or kind of merchandise subject to this
investigation. BS plc is the only respondent company for the class or kind of
merchandise subject to this investigation: certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
Glynwed Steels Limited ("Glynwed") did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire. Therefore, as the best information available, we assigned Glynwed,
0.71 percent, the sum of the ad valorem rates calculated for programs which were
not BS plc-specific (i.e., regional development grants and EC programs).
Corporate History
BS plc is the corporate successor to the British Steel Corporation (BSC), a company
that was wholly-owned by the UK Government. In 1988, the UK Government sold
BSC through a public offering of shares. With the exception of a Special Share
(which prevents persons or persons acting in concert from having an interest of
15% or more in the company) and approximately 0.000017 percent of the total
number of shares issued, the UK Government currently holds no ownership in BS
plc.
Analysis of Programs
For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are
measuring subsidies (the period of investigation (POI)) is March 31, 1991 through
March 28, 1992, which corresponds to the fiscal year of BS plc.
In determining the benefits received under the various programs described below,
we first calculated the ad valorem benefit for each program received by BSC. The
benefits for all programs were then summed to arrive at BS plc's total subsidy rate.
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we
preliminarily determine the following:
Equityworthiness
Petitioners have alleged that BSC was unequityworthy during financial years
1977/78 through 1985/86, and, therefore, the equity infusions received by BSC
during those years were inconsistent with commercial considerations. The
Department previously determined that BSC was unequityworthy between 1977
and 1982 (Stainless Steel Sheet, Strip and Plate from the United Kingdom
(Stainless Steel), 48 FR 19048 (April 27, 1983)). In Stainless Steel Plate from the
United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review (Stainless Steel Review), 51 FR 34112 (September 25, 1986), the
Department determined that BSC was unequityworthy in financial years 1982/83
and 1983/84. Respondents have presented no new evidence in this investigation
that would lead us to reconsider the Department's previous findings.
With respect to the period 1984/85 through 1985/86, we examined the financial
condition of BSC. The analysis of prior years' results strongly indicates that BSC was
unequityworthy for financial years 1984/85 and 1985/86. For fiscal year 1984/85,
BSC yielded negative returns on assets and equity. Times interest earned in
addition to BSC's profit margin were negative for financial year 1984/85. Although
BSC reported a profit in 1986, the profit margin on sales was only one percent.
Finally, no dividends were distributed by BSC between 1977 and 1986.
Consequently, based on Stainless Steel, Stainless Steel Review, and our review of
BSC's financial results prior to years 1984/85 and 1985/86, we preliminarily
determine that BSC was unequityworthy from 1977/78 through 1985/86.
Creditworthiness
The Department previously determined that BSC was creditworthy from its
formation through its fiscal year 1976/77 and was uncreditworthy for fiscal years
1977/78 through 1981/82 (Certain Steel Products from the United Kingdom
(Steel Products), 47 FR 39384, 39386 (September 7, 1982). In the Stainless Steel
Review, the Department determined that BSC was uncreditworthy in financial years
1982/83 and 1983/84. Respondents have provided no new information in this
investigation that would lead us to reconsider the Department's previous findings.
With respect to the period 1984/85 through 1985/86, we examined the financial
condition of BSC. The analysis of prior years' results strongly indicates that BSC was
uncreditworthy for financial years 1984/85 and 1985/86. Times interest earned in
addition to BSC's profit margin were negative for financial year 1984/85. We noted
high ratios of debt to equity for both financial years 1984/85 and 1985/86.
Although BSC reported a profit in 1986, the profit margin on sales was only one
percent. Based on this information, we preliminarily determine that BSC was
uncreditworthy in 1984/85 and 1985/86. Based on Steel Products, the Stainless
Steel Review, and our review of BSC's financial results for years 1984/85 and
1985/86, we preliminarily determine that BSC was uncreditworthy for the period
1977/78 through 1985/86.
Privatization
Respondents have argued that when the control of assets is transferred to private
parties in an arm's-length transaction at fair market value, as was the case with BSC,
there should be no attribution of countervailable benefits to the assets of the new
owners because of subsidies that may have been provided to the state-owned
enterprise. Petitioners have argued that it is the competitive advantage conferred
on the company by subsidies, not the effect of subsidies on the company's new
owners, that the U.S. Countervailing Duty laws have been designed to address.
The Department preliminarily determines that subsidies to government-owned
companies are not extinguished by the subsequent privatization of those
companies. The amount we countervail is the value of the benefit received by the
company allocated over time under the Department's standard methodology. The
only event that the Department would recognize as extinguishing a countervailable
subsidy would be the repayment to the government by a recipient company of the
remaining value of that subsidy in accordance with the Department's methodology.
(See, the Department's privatization memorandum found in the general issue file
C-100-004 for the certain steel products investigations).
Specificity
When receipt of benefits under a program is not contingent upon exportation, the
Department must determine whether the program is specific to an enterprise or
industry, or group of enterprises or industries. Under the specificity analysis, the
Department examines both whether a government program is limited by law to a
specific enterprise or industry, or group thereof (i.e., de jure specificity) and
whether the government program is in fact limited to a specific enterprise or
industry, or group thereof (i.e., de facto specificity). See 19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(B). In §
355.43(b)(2) of the Department's proposed regulations (Countervailing Duties;
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments 54 FR 23366
(May 31, 1989) (Proposed Rules)), the Department has set forth the factors that
may be considered in determining whether there is specificity:
*57736
(i) The extent to which a government acts to limit the availability of a
program;
(ii) The number of enterprises, industries, or groups thereof that actually use a
program;
(iii) Whether there are dominant users of a program, or whether certain
enterprises, industries, or groups thereof receive disproportionately large benefits
under a program; and
(iv) The extent to which a government exercises discretion in conferring benefits
under a program.
See also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 57 FR 22570 (May 28, 1992).
Equity Methodology
According to § 355.49(e) of the Proposed Rules, the Department measures the
benefit of equity investments in "unequityworthy" firms by comparing the national
average rate of return on equity with the company's rate of return on equity during
each year of the allocation period. The difference in these amounts, the so-called
rate of return shortfall (RORS), is then multiplied by the amount of the equity
investment to determine the countervailable benefit in the given year.
The Department has preliminarily concluded that the RORS methodology does not
provide an accurate measure of the benefits arising from government equity
investments in unequityworthy companies. When the Department finds that a
company is unequityworthy and, hence, that the government's equity investment
is inconsistent with commercial considerations, we are effectively finding that the
company could not attract share capital from a reasonable investor. When a
company is in such poor financial condition that it cannot attract capital, any
capital it receives benefits the company as if it were a grant and no earnings of the
company in subsequent years should be used to offset the benefit.
Moreover, in calculating the company's rate of return, no adjustment is made to
eliminate the effect of past or current subsidies. Therefore, those subsidies that
increase the company's rate of return serve to reduce the amount of the subsidy
arising from government equity investments in subsequent years. In addition, this
method does not compensate for the effect of prior year results on equity in
subsequent years, thus measuring the rate of return against an equity other than
that invested in the transaction in question.
For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined that equity investments in
unequityworthy companies will be treated as grants given in the year of the equity
investment. Accordingly, we will value the benefits using the grants methodology
described below.
Where a market-determined benchmark price for equity exists, we will continue to
use that benchmark to determine whether the government's purchase of equity
confers a subsidy and to measure the amount of the subsidy.
Grant Methodology
Our policy with respect to grants is (1) to expense recurring grants in the year of
receipt, and (2) to allocate non-recurring grants over the average useful life of
assets in the industry, unless the sum of grants provided under a particular
program is less than 0.5 percent of a firm's total or export sales (depending on
whether the program is a domestic or export subsidy) in the year in which the
grant was received. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination; Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, (Salmon from
Norway), 56 FR 7678 (February 25, 1991). We have considered the grants
provided under the programs described below to be non- recurring, unless
otherwise noted, because the recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on an
ongoing basis from review period to review period. See, Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Fresh Atlantic Groundfish from
Canada, 51 FR 10041 (March 24, 1986). (In this regard, we are reexamining the
approach to distinguishing recurring from non-recurring benefits set forth in the
three-part test found in the preamble of the Proposed Rules. Therefore, we have
allocated the benefits over 15 years, which the Department considers to be
reflective of the average useful life of assets in the steel industry (see, §
355.49(b)(3) of the Proposed Rules).
The benefit from each of the grant programs discussed below was calculated using
the declining balance methodology described in the Department's Proposed Rules
(see, § 355.49(b)(3)) and used in prior investigations (see, e.g., Salmon from
Norway). For the discount rate used in these calculations, we used, whenever
possible, each company's actual cost for long-term, fixed-rate debt. If a company
did not report this cost, or when a company had no long-term borrowing in the
year in which the grant was approved, we used the national average long-term
interest rate. If a company was uncreditworthy in the year in which the grant was
approved, we added a risk premium to the benchmark interest rate in accordance
with § 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed Rules.
BS plc's Total Sales Value
The volume and value data reported by BS plc includes added value on material
purchased from BS plc mills and sales of material purchased from other producers.
According to BS plc's response, British Steel Distribution (BSD) purchases steel
from both BS plc's own mills and from other producers in both the United
Kingdom and overseas. BSD stocks this material and then sells it to end-users,
either in its original form or after further processing.
BS plc provided an estimated quantification of the total steel products purchased
from other producers, added value on all internal purchases, and variations in
BSD's year-end stock positions. We have subtracted this estimate from BS plc's total
sales value to arrive at a value representative of BS plc sales only.
A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable
We preliminarily determine that subsidies are being provided to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in the United Kingdom of certain steel products under
the following programs:
1. Government Equity Infusions Into BSC
BSC received equity capital from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
pursuant to section 18(1) of the Iron and Steel Acts of 1975, 1981, and 1982
(Section 18(1)). This equity capital was received every financial year from
1977/78 through 1985/86, totalling 6,601 million. The UK Government's equity
investments in BSC were made pursuant to its agreed external financing limit,
which was based upon medium term financial projections. BSC's performance was
monitored by the UK Government on an ongoing basis and requests for capital
were examined on a case-by-case basis. The UK Government did not receive any
additional ownership, such as stock or additional rights, in return for the capital
provided to BSC under section 18(1) since it already owned 100 percent of the
company.
In Stainless Steel and the Stainless Steel Review, the Department determined that
BSC received infusions and was unequityworthy for the years 1977/78 through
1981/82 and 1982/83 through 1983/84, respectively. Respondents did not
provide any new
*57737
evidence disputing these findings. As stated above, we
preliminarily determined that BSC was unequityworthy in 1984/85 and 1985/86.
Thus, we preliminarily determine that the equity provided to BSC by the UK
Government between 1977/78 through 1985/86 was on terms inconsistent with
commercial considerations.
BSC wrote off its section 18(1) capital through two capital reconstructions. The first
capital reconstruction involved the write-off of capital in recognition that trading
losses could not be recovered out of existing assets. It was effected in two stages
under the Iron and Steel Acts 1981 and 1982. First, the 1981 Act itself reduced by
3,000 million the sums invested in BSC by the UK Government under section 18(1).
Second, a further reduction of 1,000 million was taken in 1982 pursuant to a
statutory instrument (the British Steel Corporation Reduction of Capital Order)
under the Iron and Steel Act 1982.
A second capital reconstruction of BSC took place in 1988 in accordance with the
British Steel Act 1988. The purpose of this second reconstruction, involving a
reduction of 2,980 million in section 18(1) funds, was to prepare BSC for
privatization by bringing it into a form appropriate for a Public Limited Company
(i.e., "plc").
Consistent with our preliminary determination to treat equity investments on
unequityworthy companies as grants, we have calculated the benefit for the POI
using the declining balance methodology for grants described in the Department's
Proposed Regulations, and used in prior investigations (see, e.g., Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determinations: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Canada,
51 FR 15037 (April 22, 1986)).
We have further determined that the company benefitted by virtue of the equity
infusion inconsistent with commercial considerations, and not through the
subsequent write-off of the equity. Therefore, we are countervailing the equity
investments as grants given in the years the equity capital was received. Because
we preliminarily determine that BSC was uncreditworthy from 1977/78 through
1985/86, we have used a risk premium in deriving the discount rate. We then
allocated the benefits over the useful life of assets in the steel industry, which the
Department considers to be 15 years on the basis of asset guidelines previously
employed by the Internal Revenue Service. (See § 355.49(b)(3) of the Proposed
Regulations) We divided the benefit by BSC's total sales during the POI, adjusted as
discussed above. On this basis, we determine the net subsidy for this program to be
17.01 percent ad valorem for BS plc.
2. Cancelled NLF Debt
In conjunction with the 1981/1982 capital reconstruction of BSC, Section 3(1) of
the Iron and Steel Act 1981 extinguished 509,308,569 of National Loan Fund
(NLF) loans, together with accrued interest thereon, at the end of BSC's 1980/81
financial year.
Because this cancellation of debt was provided specifically to BSC, we preliminarily
determine that it is a countervailable benefit.
We calculated the benefit for the POI using our standard methodology for non-
recurring grants (see Grant Methodology Section, above). For the discount rate, we
included a risk premium because we have preliminarily determined that BSC was
uncreditworthy for financial year 1981/82. We divided the benefit by BS plc' total
sales, adjusted as discussed above, to calculate the ad valorem benefit. On this
basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 1.41 percent ad
valorem for BS plc.
3. Regional Development Grants
Regional development grants were made to BSC under the Industry Act 1972 and
the Industrial Development Act 1982. In order to qualify for assistance under
these two acts, an applicant had to be wholly or mainly engaged in manufacturing
located in an assisted area. Assisted areas were older industrial areas identified as
having deep-seated and long-term problems, high levels of unemployment,
migration, slow economic growth, derelict land, old and obsolete factory buildings
and a relatively low level of amenity.
Regional development grants were paid for the purchase of specific assets.
According to the UK Government, they involved one-time grants the disbursement
of which was sometimes spaced over several years.
BSC received regional development grants during financial years 1977/78 through
1985/86. In any year, the amounts claimed by BSC for these grants covered a
number of successful applications that had met the required criteria.
Since this program is limited to specific regions, we preliminarily find it
countervailable within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act.
We calculated the benefit for the POI using our standard methodology for non-
recurring grants (see Grant Methodology Section, above). When the total grants
received in any year were less than 0.50 percent of sales in that year, we expensed
the benefit in the year of receipt. For the discount rate, we included a risk premium
since we have preliminarily determined that BSC was uncreditworthy from
1977/78 through 1985/86. We divided the benefit by BS plc's total sales, adjusted
as discussed above, to calculate the ad valorem benefit. On this basis, we determine
the net subsidies for this program to be 0.71 percent ad valorem for BS plc.
4. European Investment Bank (EIB) Loans
EIB loans are provided for the purpose of contributing to the steady and balanced
development of the Community by providing loans and loan guarantees for capital
investment projects in all sectors of the economy.
The EIB borrows the major part of its resources on international capital
markets--mainly through public bond issues. Often, EIB loans complement the
borrower's own funds and other sources of finance. EIB loans rarely exceed 50% of
investment cost of project and there is no differentiation between sector or client
type. Loans are disbursed in all denominations (single or mixed), with different
interest rates being applied to each separate denomination, as appropriate.
We preliminarily determine that the loans under this program are provided to a
specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries. Although
these loans may be de jure available to all sectors and regions, the EC did not
provide requested information on the de facto distribution of benefits. Thus, these
loans are countervailable to the extent that they are provided on terms
inconsistent with commercial considerations.
BSC had two EIB loans outstanding during the POI. Each loan had different
segments denominated in different currencies. The first was received in 1973 and
the other in 1974. To determine whether they were provided on terms inconsistent
with commercial considerations, we converted all the loans to dollars.
We compared what was paid on these loans to what would have been paid on
comparable benchmark financing. As our benchmark interest rate, we used an
average U.S. long-term commercial rate. We found that both loans were provided
on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that both EIB loans are countervailable.
To calculate the benefit from these loans we employed our normal long-term loan
methodology, described in
*57738
§ 355.49(c)(1) of the Department's Proposed
Regulations. (See also, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination;
Certain Granite Products from Spain, 53 FR 24340 (June 28, 1988)). We then
divided the benefit by BS plc's total sales, adjusted as discussed above, to calculate
the ad valorem benefit. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this
program to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for BS plc.
5. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Aid
The ERDF provides loans to aid development in declining industrial regions. ERDF
loans are granted to projects that target modernization of infrastructure and
potential measures for internally generated development. Rather than financing
operational costs, the ERDF only finances investment costs. ERDF assistance may
be obtained more than once by a single beneficiary, but it must be for a separate
project. In addition, projects under this program are limited to specific
geographical regions. Each Member State is responsible for identifying specific
projects to be financed within its territory, and filing an application for assistance
with the Commission. The program is jointly financed by the Member States
concerned and the Commission.
We preliminarily determine that this program is specific because benefits are
provided regionally. Therefore, these loans would be countervailable to the extent
that they are provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
BS plc received ERDF aid for its Deeside Industrial Park in financial year 1991/92.
This aid related to the development of land that had belonged to BSC and was used
for agricultural purposes.
Because BS plc has characterized this aid as a grant rather than a loan, we are
treating it as a grant for purposes of the preliminary determination. We calculated
the benefit for the POI using our standard methodology for non- recurring grants
(see Grant Methodology Section, above). Because the amount of this grant is less
than 0.5 percent of BS plc's total sales in 1991, we have expensed it in the year of
receipt (i.e., 1991). We divided the amount of the grant by BS plc's total sales,
adjusted as discussed above, to calculate the ad valorem benefit. On this basis, we
determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for BS
plc.
B. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable
We preliminarily determine that the following programs do not provide subsidies
to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in the United Kingdom of certain
steel products under the following programs:
1. ECSC Article 54 Loans/Interest Rebates
Article 54 industrial investment loans are provided for the purpose of purchasing
new equipment or financing modernization. The EC stated that Article 54 loans are
direct loans from the Commission and that the funds are loaned at a slightly higher
rate than that at which the Commission obtained them in order to cover its costs.
According to the EC Response, the Commission has this program to facilitate the
borrowing process for companies in the ECSC, some of which may not otherwise be
able to obtain these loans. These loans are only available to the iron and steel
industry.
We preliminarily determine that this program is limited to the iron and steel
industry. Therefore, these loans are countervailable to the extent that they are
provided on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.
Article 54 interest rebates were granted to steel companies during the
restructuring and modernization of the industry in the beginning of the 1980s.
Companies applying for these rebates had to meet certain criteria such as a
reduction in steel production and improvements in processing that would yield
energy savings and improved efficiency. Interest rebates to steel companies were
limited to a maximum of 3 percent of the eligible investment over a period of five
years. Funds for these rebates were provided by the ECSC Operational Budget
which is made up of levies on all ECSC companies.
Because the interest rebates provided came from the ECSC Operational Budget,
which was financed exclusively by producer levies since 1985, interest rebates
provided from 1985 to the present are not countervailable. However, because the
interest rebates given prior to 1985 were financed through Member State
contributions, interest rebates provided before 1985 are countervailable.
Moreover, because companies are aware that interest rebates will be available
when the loans are taken out, we are preliminarily treating these interest rate
subsidies as reduced interest loans.
BSC received three Article 54 loans in 1977. It also received rebates on one of
these loans. We considered the loan made to BSC during its creditworthy period
(prior to April 1977) separately from the two loans made during its
uncreditworthy period (after March 1977). All three of these loans were
denominated in U.S. dollars. Therefore, to determine whether these loans were
made on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations, we compared the
payments on the ECSC loan with what would have been paid using an average U.S.
long-term commercial rate for 1977 for the Article 54 loan made during BSC's
creditworthy period. Because we have preliminarily found BSC to be
uncreditworthy in financial year 1977/78, we have used as the benchmark interest
rate the highest U.S. lending rate available, plus an amount equal to 12 percent of
the U.S. prime rate for 1977 for the other two loans. See, Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, from
Canada, 54 FR 31991 (August 3, 1989) and § 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Department's
Proposed Regulations.
We compared the benchmark financing to the financing BSC received under this
program and found that the Article 54 loans were not provided on terms
inconsistent with commercial considerations.
2. Transportation Assistance
British Rail is required by the UK Government to operate on a commercial basis
with set financial targets. It is British Rail's policy not to discriminate between
comparable customers in determining its charges. According to the UK
Government, such discrimination would be counter to the commercial objectives
set by the Government and would distort the terms of competition between rail
freight users, exposing British Rail to action under EC competition law.
Because the responses stated that the rates charged BS plc's are determined on the
same basis as those for all comparable customers and we have no evidence to the
contrary, we preliminarily determine that this program is not countervailable.
C. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used
We preliminarily determine that the following programs were not used by
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in the United Kingdom of certain steel
products:
1. Loan Guarantees
2. NLF Loans
3. ECSC Redeployment Aid
4. ECSC Conversion Loans
5. Article 56 Rebates
*57739
Verification
In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the information used in
making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs
Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain steel products from the
United Kingdom, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise
in the amounts indicated below. This suspension will remain in effect until further
notice.
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate
Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate--19.13 percent.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination and alignment. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all
nonprivileged and nonproprietary information relating to this investigation. We
will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in
our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information,
either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written
consent of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations, Import
Administration.
If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
Public Comment
Interested parties who wish to request or participate in a hearing must submit a
written request within ten days of the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, room B-099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; (3) the reason for attending; and (4) a list
of the issues to be discussed. Since investigations involving the same class or kind
of merchandise subject to this investigation from various other countries are
currently being conducted, we will publish a briefing and hearing schedule in the
Federal Register after receipt of all requests for hearings in these investigations.
This determination and alignment is published pursuant to section 703(f) and
705(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).
Dated: November 27, 1992.
Alan M. Dunn,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix 1
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation, certain steel products, constitute the
following "class or kind" of merchandise, as outlined below.
Although the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written descriptions of
the scope of these proceedings are dispositive.
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150
millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than
4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of solid rectangular (other
than square) cross section, of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated
with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products in
straight lengths, of solid rectangular (other than square) cross section, of
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether
or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances,
4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150
millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in
the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000,
7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000,
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000,
7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and
7212.50.0000.
(FR Doc. 92-29498 Filed 12-4-92; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M