[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 590-591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-146]
[[Page 589]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
International Trade Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India; Amended Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1996 /
Notices
[[Page 590]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-063]
Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register the final reults of the
1992 Administrative Review of the countervailing duty order on Certain
Iron Metal Castings from India (``castings'') (61 FR 64676). Based on
corrections of ministerial errors, we are now amending the final
results of this review. We have corrected these errors and determine
the net subsidies to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for Dinesh Brothers,
Pvt. Ltd., 14.20 percent for Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd., and 6.08
percent ad valorem for all other companies. We will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as indicated above.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marian Wells, Office of CVD/AD
Enforcement I, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-6309.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce published in the
Federal Register the final results of the 1992 Administrative Review of
the countervailing duty order on Certain Iron Metal Castings from India
(61 FR 64676). The period covered by this administrative review is
January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992.
On December 11, 1996, the Department received a timely allegation
from respondents that the Department had made clerical errors in its
loan calculations with respect to three companies in the final results
of this review. In particular, the respondents allege that we did not
take account of ``penalty'' interest payments in our calculations. On
December 18, 1996, petitioner responded, taking the position that the
alleged errors for two of the companies were not clerical in nature.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of Indian manhole
covers and frames, clean-out covers and frames, and catch basin grates
and frames. These articles are commonly called municipal or public
works castings and are used for access or drainage for public utility,
water, and sanitary systems. During the review period, such merchandise
was classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item
numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.
Ministerial Errors in Final Results of Review
Serampore
The respondents allege that we did not take account of ``penalty''
interest payments in our calculations. We have reviewed the
calculations in the final results of this review and we agree with
respondents that we should have included certain penalty interest
payments. Our consistent practice in other reviews has been to include
penalty interest as part of the effective cost of the postshipment
loans. The Department also notes that in reviewing the calculations, we
learned that we failed to adjust the benchmark used for certain loans
to reflect inflation. With the inflation adjustment, those loans, which
we found not countervailable in our final results, have become
countervailable. The Department has corrected the loan calculations for
all respondents to include penalty interest, and has made the inflation
adjustment to the benchmark for those loans where it was not previously
included.
Calcutta Ferrous
In reviewing our calculations, the Department also learned that we
had entered the wrong number of days for certain postshipment loans
which were outstanding for one respondent, Calcutta Ferrous. We have
corrected this error.
Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd.
In respect to Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd., the respondents
allege that the Department failed to take into account the penalty
interest on most of the loans that extended into 1993. We have reviewed
this calculation and disagree with respondents. The Department did in
fact take into account penalty interest on loans that were extended
into 1993, but only for those loans where the penalty interest was paid
in whole or in part in 1992 (the POR). If a loan was received in 1992
and repaid in 1993, and all of the penalty interest paid in 1993
(outside of the POR), the penalty interest will be accounted for in the
1993 reveiw. Therefore, we do not consider this to be a clerical error
and have not adjusted our calculations.
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
Pursuant to Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F.
Supp. 431, 439 (CIT 1994), Commerce is required to calculate a country-
wide CVD rate, i.e., the all-others rate, by ``weight averaging the
benefits received by all companies by their proportion of exports to
the United States, inclusive of zero rate firms and de minimis firms.''
Therefore, we first calculated a subsidy rate for each company subject
to the administrative review. We then weighted the rate received by
each company using its share of U.S. exports to total Indian exports to
the United States of subject merchandise. We then summed the individual
companies' weighted rates to determine the weighted-average country-
wide subsidy rate from all programs benefitting exports of subject
merchandise to the United States.
Because the country-wide rate calculated using this methodology was
above de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR 355.7 (1994), we proceeded to
the next step and examined the net subsidy rate calculated for each
company to determine whether individual company rates differed
significantly from the weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to
19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). Two companies (Kajaria and Dinesh) received
significantly different net subsidy rates during the review period.
These companies will be treated separately for assessment purposes,
while all other companies will be assigned the weighted-average
country-wide rate. However, because the Final Results of the 1992
Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Iron
Metal Castings from India (61 FR 64676) was published concurrently with
the final results of the
[[Page 591]]
1993 administrative review, the 1993 administrative review will
continue to serve as the basis for setting the cash deposit rate.
Amended Final Results of Review
For the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, we
determine the net subsidies to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for Dinesh
Brothers, Pvt. Ltd., 14.20 percent for Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd.,
and 6.08 percent ad valorem for all other companies.
This amendment of final results of reviews and notice are in
accordance with section 751(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(f)) and 19
CFR 355.28(c).
Dated: December 31, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-146 Filed 1-2-97; 11:12 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P