[Federal Register: April 4, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 15041-15044]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-122-825]
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation:
Certain Laminated Hardwood Flooring from Canada
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Strumbel or David Boyland, Office
of Countervailing Duty Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20230; telephone
[[Page 15042]]
(202) 482-1442, (202) 482-4198, respectively.
Initiation of Investigation
The 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 effective January 1, 1995 (the Act).
The Petition
On March 7, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received a petition filed from the Ad Hoc Committee on Laminated
Hardwood Trailer Flooring Imports (the petitioners). The Ad Hoc
Committee is made up of five U.S. producers of laminated hardwood
flooring (LHF): Anderson-Tully, Havco Wood Products, Inc., Industrial
Hardwood Products Inc. (IHP), Lewisohn Sales Company Inc., and Cloud
Corporation/Cloud Oak Corporation. On March 15, March 22, and March 26,
1996, petitioners amended the petition by providing additional
information, as well as revising the manner in which certain
information in the petition was presented to the Department.
In accordance with section 701(a) of the Act, petitioners allege
that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of the subject merchandise
in Canada receive countervailable subsidies.
The petitioners have standing to file the petition because they are
interested parties, as defined under section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
On March 21 and 22, 1996, the Department held consultations with
representatives of the Government of Canada (GOC) and the Government of
Quebec (GOQ) pursuant to 702(b)(4)(ii) (see March 26, 1996 memos to the
file regarding these consultations). On March 26, 1996, the GOC and the
GOQ submitted certain information with respect to certain programs
alleged in the petition.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the Department to
determine, prior to the initiation of an investigation, that a minimum
percentage of the domestic industry supports a countervailing duty
petition. A petition meets these minimum requirements if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for (1) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the petition.
The Department has been notified that two domestic producers of LHF
oppose the petition. A review of the production data provided in the
petition and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that the petitioner accounts for more than 50 percent of the
total production of the domestic like products thus meeting the
standard of 702(c)(4)(A) and requiring no further action by the
Department pursuant to 702(c)(4)(D). Accordingly, the Department
determines that this petition is supported by the domestic industry.
Injury Test
Because Canada is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, Title VII of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports
of the subject merchandise from Canada materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation consists of certain laminated
hardwood flooring which is made of oak, maple or other hardwood lumber.
Laminated hardwood flooring is customized for specific dimensions, but
generally ranges in size from 8' x 48'' x 1'' to 8' x 6'' x
57'' x 1\1/2\'' for trailer flooring, and to 8' x 16'' x 1(\1/
8\)'' to 8' x 26' x 1(\1/2\)'' for trailer flooring and van and
truck bodies, respectively. The merchandise under investigation is
currently classified, in addition to various other hardwood products,
under subheading 4421.90.98.40 and 9905.44.50.15 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Allegation of Subsidies
Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a
petition, on behalf of an industry, that (1) alleges the elements
necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a), and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to petitioners
supporting the allegations.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
The Department has examined the petition on LHF from Canada and
found that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are
initiating a countervailing duty investigation to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of LHF from Canada receive
subsidies.
We are including in our investigation the following programs
alleged in the petition to have provided subsidies to producers of the
subject merchandise in Canada:
1. Capital Gains Exemptions
2. Investment Tax Credits (ITCs)
3. Export Development Corporation (EDC)
4. Performance Security Services through EDC
5. Program for Export Market Development (PEMD)
6. Venture Loans Through the Business Development Bank of Canada
(BDBC)
7. Working Capital for Growth from BDBC
8. Programs Provided by the Industrial Development Corporation
(SDI) <SUP>1
\1\ The Department is not including in the investigation other
SDI programs.
Article 7 Assistance
Export Assistance Program
Business Investment Assistance Program
Business Financing Program
Research and Innovation Activities Program
9. Export Promotion Assistance Program (APEX)
10. St. Lawrence River Environmental Technology Development Program
11. Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)
12. Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on the Economic Development
of Quebec
13. Private Forest Development Program (PFDP)
14. Quebec Stumpage Program
The Department has reviewed information submitted by the GOQ which
has raised a question whether Leclerc is a tenure holder; i.e., whether
it received benefits under this program. Therefore, the Department has
included this program in its investigation to investigate use of this
program.
Petitioners have argued that Nilus Leclerc Inc. (Leclerc) ``became
partners with the government * * * with the sole objective of taking
over the U.S. [LHF] market'' and that all programs provided to Leclerc
should be considered specific because they were given pursuant to ``an
overall endeavor that gave Leclerc special treatment.'' However,
petitioners were unable to provide any evidence that the GOC or
[[Page 15043]]
the GOQ have provided any ``special treatment'' to Leclerc.
Accordingly, the Department did not consider petitioners' ``special
specificity'' argument when determining whether a program should be
included in the investigation.
We are not including in our investigation the following programs
alleged to be benefiting producers of the subject merchandise in
Canada:
National Programs
1. Canadian Forest Services Research Subsidies
The Canadian Forest Service (CFS) maintains a series of programs
that support basic research and development in forestry.
Petitioners have provided no information to support the allegation
that LHF producers would conduct research under these programs.
Therefore, we are not including this program in our investigation.
2. Cooperative Industrial and Market Development Partnership (CIMDP)
The CIMDP provides information concerning export enhancement,
export market penetration, and productivity enhancement to members of
the British Columbia (BC) Wood Specialties Group, an association of BC
companies involved in secondary wood manufacturing.
Petitioners have provided no information to support the allegation
that any producer of subject merchandise is eligible to receive
benefits under this program. The Canadian producers of LHF identified
in the petition are located in Quebec and Ontario. Because the Canadian
producers of LHF identified by the petitioners are not located in BC,
and no BC producer of LHF has been identified, we are not including
this program in our investigation.
3. Term Loans Through BDBC
Small and medium-sized businesses are eligible to receive BDBC term
loans for the purchase of land, buildings, equipment, major plant
overhauls, working capital, refinancing, and changes of ownership.
Because the amortization of BDBC term loans is apparently flexible,
petitioners have argued that the program provides a benefit.
Because petitioners have provided no basis to believe that this
program is specific pursuant to section 771(5)(A), either as a domestic
or export subsidy, we are not including this program in our
investigation.
4. Venture Capital Division of BDBC
Under this program BDBC provides small and medium-sized companies
with equity financing in the form of straight equity, options,
warrants, or convertible or other forms of debentures.
Because petitioners have provided no basis to believe that this
program is specific pursuant to section 771(5)(A), either as a domestic
or export subsidy, we are not including this program in our
investigation.
Quebec Provincial Programs
5. Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance Program
Under this program the GOQ provides financial assistance to cover
up to 50 percent of the eligible expenditures for feasibility studies
of industrial projects to be carried out in Quebec. Petitioners believe
that Leclerc may have received benefits under this program in order to
develop its LHF business.
Because petitioners have provided no basis to believe that this
program is specific pursuant to section 771(5)(A), either as a domestic
or export subsidy, we are not including this program in our
investigation.
6. Development Assistance Program Under SDI
According to petitioners, SDI provides venture capital for up to 90
percent of eligible expenditures which is repayable through royalties
on sales or minority interest in the capital stock of the company.
Petitioners have not alleged that Leclerc was unequityworthy or
that any financing provided was preferential. Therefore, we are not
including this program in our investigation.
7. Quebec Business Investment Companies Act administered by SDI
The objective of the Business Investment Companies Act is to
promote better capitalization of Quebec companies and to encourage
investment by providing tax benefits to shareholders in special
corporations which invest in Quebec companies. Although it is not
clear, petitioners may view the benefit under this program to be an
equity infusion into Leclerc which presumably would not have taken
place absent the above-referenced tax benefits. Alternatively,
petitioners may believe that Leclerc's financing costs are reduced
pursuant to the tax deduction.
Because petitioners have provided no basis to believe that this
program is specific pursuant to section 771(5)(A), either as a domestic
or export subsidy, we are not including this program in our
investigation.
8. Financial Assistance for Research, Formation, and Improvement of
Recycling Industry
Under this program, the Quebec Ministry of Environment provides
grants to the recycling industry in Quebec.
Because petitioners have provided insufficient information to
support the allegation that Leclerc is also part of the Quebec
recycling industry, and is therefore eligible to participate in this
program, we are not including this program in our investigation.
9. Preferential Rates under Hydro-Quebec Risk and Profit Sharing
Under the Risk and Profit Sharing program, the provincially-owned
power company, Hydro-Quebec, signs long-term contracts with its
industrial customers for the provision of electricity. A portion of the
rate to be charged under these contracts is based either on the price
of the customer's products or the company's profit. Industrial
customers which meet several criteria (e.g., at least a five megawatt
power requirement and energy costs which represent 15 percent or more
of production costs) are eligible to participate in the program.
Because petitioners have not provided information which is
sufficient to support the allegation that Leclerc would be eligible for
this program, we are not including this program in our investigation.
Ontario Provincial Program
Ontario Stumpage
10. Petitioners have alleged that Leclerc may benefit from Ontario
stumpage. Because petitioners have not provided either a benchmark
stumpage rate or the public stumpage rate charged by the Government of
Ontario, we are not including this program in our investigation.
Creditworthiness
Petitioners assert that the financial position of Leclerc was such
that it was uncreditworthy when it allegedly obtained a ``large and
speculative'' amount of government-sponsored financing. Petitioners
indicate that they have provided the information which is reasonably
available to them showing that Leclerc ``did not possess intrinsic
worth'' to avail itself of such large amounts of capital.
The Department does not consider the creditworthiness of a firm
absent a specific allegation by the petitioner which is supported by
information
[[Page 15044]]
establishing a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the firm is
uncreditworthy. While the information provided by petitioners does
raise certain doubts as to Leclerc's ability to attract such financing,
the financial information regarding Leclerc is incomplete. Therefore,
at this time, the Department does not have a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that Leclerc is uncreditworthy.
Critical Circumstances
The petition contains an allegation that there is a reasonable
basis to believe that critical circumstances exist with respect to
imports of subject merchandise.
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will
determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that
critical circumstances exist if:
(A) The alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the
Subsidies Agreement, and
(B) There have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over
a relatively short period of time.
The petition contains information that satisfies these criteria.
First, in accordance with section 771(5)(A)(B) of the Act, petitioners
have alleged that several programs are export subsidies and, therefore,
inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement. With respect to the second
statutory criterion, whether imports of the subject merchandise have
been massive over a relatively short period of time, petitioners note
that there has been significant import growth in recent years.
Based on the above, we find a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that critical circumstances exist and will investigate this
matter further.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of
the public version of the petition have been provided to
representatives of GOC. We will attempt to provide copies of the public
version of the petition to all the exporters named in the petition.
ITC Notification
Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of
these initiations.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will determine by April 21, 1996, whether there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being
materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports from Canada of LHF. Any ITC determination which is negative
will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, the
investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time
limits. If the ITC determines that an industry in the United States is
being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, the
Department will issue its preliminary determination in this
investigation on May 31, 1996.
This notice is published pursuant to 702(c)(2) of the Act.
Dated: March 27, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-8218 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P