Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative reviews.
On February 5, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of administrative reviews of the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on low enriched uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom for the period May 14, 2001, through December 31, 2002 (see Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 69 FR 5498 (February 5, 2004) (Preliminary Results)). The Department has now completed these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Based on information received since the Preliminary Results and our analysis of the comments received, the Department has revised the net subsidy rate for Urenco Deutschland GmbH of Start Printed Page 40870Germany (UD), Urenco Nederland B.V. of the Netherlands (UNL), Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited (UCL) of the United Kingdom, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc. (collectively, the Urenco Group or respondents), the producers/exporters of subject merchandise covered by these reviews. For further discussion of the changes we have made since the Preliminary Results, see the “Issues and Decision Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group I, to Jeffrey May, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration concerning the “Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom” (Decision Memorandum) dated June 30, 2004. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Reviews.”
Effective July 7, 2004.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Darla Brown or Robert Copyak, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On February 5, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register its Preliminary Results. We invited interested parties to comment on the results. Since the preliminary results, the following events have occurred.
On March 8, 2004, we received case briefs from petitioners  and respondents. In their case brief, petitioners requested a hearing. On March 15, 2004, we received rebuttal briefs from petitioners and respondents. On April 1, 2004, a public hearing was held at the Department of Commerce.
On May 27, 2004, we extended the deadline for the publication of these final results from June 4, 2004, until June 30, 2004. See Low Enriched Uranium from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 31792 (June 7, 2004).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, these reviews cover the Urenco Group. These reviews cover the period May 14, 2001, through December 31, 2002, and five programs.
Scope of Reviews
For purposes of these reviews, the product covered is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium).
Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders. Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of these orders. For purposes of these orders, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U3 O8) with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of these orders.
Also excluded from these orders is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designated transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are re-exported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user.
The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these reviews are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues contained in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Record Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading “Federal Register Notices.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Reviews
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an ad valorem subsidy rate for the Urenco Group for calendar years 2001 and 2002. For 2001, we determine the net subsidy rate for the Urenco Group to be 1.57 percent ad valorem, and for 2002, we determine the net subsidy rate for the Urenco Group to be 1.47 percent ad valorem.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews, to liquidate shipments of low enriched uranium by Urenco from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from May 14, 2001, through September 10, 2001, at 1.57 percent ad valorem and from February 13, 2002, through December 31, 2002, at 1.47 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice price. We have determined that the estimated net subsidy for future Urenco imports is zero (see the Decision Memorandum at Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports). Therefore, the Department also will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews. In addition, for the periods May 14, 2001, through September 10, 2001, and February 13, 2002, through December 31, 2002, 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. Start Printed Page 40871
Because the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (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) 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 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 these reviews will be unchanged by the results of these reviews.
We will instruct CBP 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. See Notice of Amended Final Determinations and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, 67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002) (Amended Final). This rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. In addition, for the period May 14, 2001, through December 31, 2002, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by these orders are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.
This notice also 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.
These administrative reviews and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.Start Signature
Dated: June 30, 2004.
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I—Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Methodology and Background Information
A. International Consortium
II. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rates
C. Calculation of Ad Valorem Rates
III. Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Determined To Confer Subsidies From the Government of Germany
1. Enrichment Technology Research and Development Program
2. Forgiveness of Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies
B. Program Determined Not To Confer a Benefit From the Government of Germany
1. Investment Allowance Act
C. Programs Determined To Be Not Used From the Government of the Netherlands
1. Wet Investeringsrekening Law (WIR)
2. Regional Investment Premium
IV. Total Ad Valorem Rate
V. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Allocation Period
Comment 2: Redirected Deliveries
Comment 3: Cash Deposit Rate for Future Urenco Imports
Comment 4: Draft Cash Deposit and Liquidation Instructions
Comment 5: Errors in the Preliminary Results Calculations
Comment 6: Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies by the Government of Germany
Comment 7: Sales Denominator
Comment 8: Enrichment Services
Comment 9: Industry SupportEnd Supplemental Information
1. Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) and USEC Inc.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 04-15412 Filed 7-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P