Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium.
On April 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on stainless steel plate in coils (“SSPC”) from Belgium pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR 17129 (April 1, 2004). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
November 4, 2004.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hilary Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4340.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998).
On April 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on SSPC from Belgium pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR 17129 (April 1, 2004). On April 16, 2004, the Department received a notice of intent to participate from Allegheny Ludlum Corp. (“Allegheny Ludlum”), North America Stainless (“NAS”), and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (“USWA”), (collectively, “domestic interested parties”) within the applicable deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. See Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 2, May 3, 2004 (“Domestic Response”). All domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status, under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as a U.S. producer of the domestic like product or a certified union whose workers are engaged in the production of the subject merchandise in the United States. See Domestic Response. The USWA was a petitioner in the investigation and has been involved in this proceeding since its inception. Id. at 6. Armo, Inc., J&L Specialty Steels, Inc., and Lukens Inc. were also petitioners in the original investigation but are either no longer producers of subject merchandise or are scheduled to cease production of SSPC this year. Id. According to the domestic interested parties in this review, two unions, Butler Armco Independent Union and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, that were original petitioners are not participating in this sunset review because very few workers at these unions are engaged in the production of SSPC in the United States. Id. at 7. The domestic interested parties have participated as a group at various segments of this order. Id.
The Department received a waiver of participation from U & A Belgium, a respondent interested party. See Response of U & A Belgium, “SSPC from Belgium—Sunset Participation Waiver” (April 30, 2004). We did receive substantive responses from the Government of Flanders and the Government of Belgium (collectively, “GOB”) and the Delegation of the European Commission (“EU”). See Substantive Response of the GOB, (“GOB Response”) (May 3, 2004) and the Substantive Response of the EU (“EU Response”) (April 30, 2004). In addition, the GOB and the domestic industry submitted rebuttals on May 10, 2004. See Rebuttal of the Domestic Interested Parties (“Domestic Rebuttal”) (May 10, 2004) and GOB Rebuttal (May 10, 2004).
As a result of the lack of respondent company participation in this sunset review, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order. See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Office of Policy Director, from Kelly Parkhill, Director of Industry and Support, Sunset Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Adequacy of Respondent Interested Party Responses to the Notice of Initiations (May 19, 2004).
Scope of Review
The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc. provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of these orders are the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. In addition, certain cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded from the scope of this order. The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the physical characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-reduction process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more, and has Start Printed Page 64278been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction process. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7184.108.40.206, 7220.127.116.11, 718.104.22.168, 722.214.171.124, 7220.20.60.05, 7126.96.36.199, 7188.8.131.52, 7184.108.40.206, 7220.127.116.11, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 28, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “November 2004.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on SSPC from Belgium would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the rate listed below:
|Producers/exporters||Net countervailable subsidy (percent)|
|Ugine and ALZ Belgium||1.13|
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.Start Signature
Dated: October 28, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E4-3009 Filed 11-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P