[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 193 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51681-51682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25412]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-351-406]
Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 31, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary results
of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain
agricultural tillage tools from Brazil for the period January 1, 1994
through December 31, 1994 (61 FR 39949). The Department has now
completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. We determine the net subsidy to
be zero for Marchesan Implementos Agricolas, S.A. (Marchesan). The
Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate, without
regard to countervailing duties, all shipments of the subject
merchandise from Marchesan exported on or after January 1, 1994 and on
or before December 31, 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill,
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-2786.
[[Page 51682]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pursuant to section 355.22(a) of the Department's Interim
Regulations, this review covers only those producers or exporters of
the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested.
See Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Interim regulations; request
for comments, 60 FR 25130, 25139 (May 11, 1995) (``Interim
Regulations''). Accordingly, this review covers Marchesan. This review
also covers the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, and
five programs.
We published the preliminary results on July 31, 1996 (61 FR
39949). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. We received no comments from any of the parties.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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 (``URAA'') effective January 1, 1995
(``the Act'').
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain round
shaped agricultural tillage tools (discs) with plain or notched edge,
such as colters and furrow-opener blades. During the review period,
such merchandise was classifiable under item numbers 8432.21.00,
8432.29.00, 8432.80.00 and 8432.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS). The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
Analysis of Programs
Based upon the responses to our questionnaire, and the results of
verification, we determine the following:
I. Programs Found to be Not Used
In the preliminary results, we found that the producers and/or
exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or receive
benefits under the following programs:
A. Accelerated Depreciation for Brazilian-Made Capital Goods
B. Preferential Financing for Industrial Enterprises by Banco do Brasil
(FST and EGF loans)
C. SUDENE Corporate Income Tax Reduction for Companies Located in the
Northeast of Brazil
D. Preferential Financing under PROEX (formerly under Resolution 68 and
509 through FINEX)
E. Preferential Financing under FINEP
Since there were no comments submitted by the interested parties,
we have not reconsidered our findings in the preliminary results.
Final Results of Review
In accordance with section 355.22(c)(4)(ii) of the Department's
Interim Regulations, we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each
producer/exporter subject to administrative review. Since Marchesan did
not use any of the countervailable subsidy programs during the period
of review, we determine the net subsidy for Marchesan to be zero
percent ad valorem.
As provided for in the Act, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad
valorem in an administrative review is de minimis. Accordingly, the
Department will instruct Customs to liquidate, without regard to
countervailing duties, shipments of the subject merchandise from
Marchesan exported on or after January 1, 1994, and on or before
December 31, 1994. Also, the cash deposits required for this company
will be zero. This cash deposit rate shall be effective upon
publication of this notice in accordance with Sec. 355.22(c)(8) of the
Department's Interim Regulations. Further, this deposit rate, when
imposed shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
Because the 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)(B) of the Act. The requested review
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See
section 355.22(a) of the Interim Regulations. Pursuant to 19 CFR
355.22(g), 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) (interpreting 19 CFR
353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which is
identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g)). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for
all companies except those covered by this review will be unchanged by
the results of this review.
We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for
non-reviewed companies at zero. 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 January 1, 1994 through December
31, 1994, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies
covered by this order is zero, the cash deposit rate in effect at the
time of entry.
This notice 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 355.34(d). 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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).
Dated: September 27, 1996.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25412 Filed 10-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
