[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51777-51778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24600]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
University of Rhode Island, Notice of Decision on Application for
Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument
This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed
between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Docket Number: 95-028. Applicant: University of Rhode Island,
Narragansett, RI 02882. Instrument: Chlorophyll Fluorescence Measuring
System, Model PAM 101. Manufacturer:
[[Page 51778]]
Heinz Walz GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 60 FR 24838, May
10, 1995.
Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument or
apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for
such purposes as it is intended to be used, could have been made
available to the applicant without excessive delay within the meaning
of Subsection 301.5(d)(4) of the regulations at the time the foreign
article was ordered (February 8, 1995).
Reasons: Subsection 301.5 (d)(4), of the regulations provides as
follows:
``Excessive delivery time. Duty-free entry of the instrument
shall be considered justified without regard to whether there is
being manufactured in the United States an instrument of equivalent
scientific value for the intended purposes if excessive delivery
time for the domestic instrument would seriously impair the
accomplishment of the applicant's intended purposes. ... In
determining whether the difference in delivery times cited by the
applicant justifies duty-free entry on the basis of excessive
delivery time, the Director shall take into account (A) the normal
commercial practice applicable to the production of the general
category of instrument involved; (B) the efforts made by the
applicant to secure delivery of the instruments (both foreign and
domestic) in the shortest possible time; and (C) such other factors
as the Director finds relevant under the circumstances of a
particular case.''
In response to a purchase order dated November 16, 1993, a domestic
manufacturer quoted an instrument with a July 15, 1994 delivery
schedule. The foreign manufacturer quoted delivery within 6 weeks of
initial order. At the time of order (February 8, 1995), the foreign
article was a standard catalog instrument, several of which had already
been constructed, tested, and delivered. The instrument proposed by the
domestic manufacturer was to be a standard catalog instrument requiring
modification to accommodate the applicant's needs.
Problems on the part of the domestic manufacturer delayed the
delivery schedule, first to January 1995, then to July 1995. As a
result, the applicant declined purchase of the domestic instrument. The
applicant identified important funding constraints (requiring purchase
of the instrument by April 1995) which precluded purchase of the
domestic instrument. Subsequently, the applicant claims that the
domestic company had gone out of business.
The National Institutes of Health in its memorandum dated July 11,
1995, advised that although an acceptable domestic source had been
identified, it was in the process of developing the instrument and to
date had manufactured no instrument for delivery.
Accordingly, we find that the domestic manufacturer's inability to
deliver a comparable instrument within the time required by the
applicant's project funding requirements amounts to ``excessive
delivery'' within the meaning of 301.5(d)(4). A delay of 6 months or
more would have seriously impaired the accomplishment of the
applicant's purposes.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 95-24600 Filed 10-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F
