[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17515-17520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8513]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-557-806]
Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; 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 September 8, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative
review of the countervailing duty order on extruded rubber thread from
Malaysia. We have now completed this review and determine the bounty or
grant during the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 to be
3.30 percent ad valorem for all companies.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorenza Olivas or Chris Jimenez,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 8, 1994, the Department published in the Federal
[[Page 17516]] Register (59 FR 46392) the preliminary results of its
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on extruded
rubber thread from Malaysia (57 FR 38472; August 25, 1992). The
Department has now completed this review in accordance with section 751
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. We received written comments from the Government of Malaysia
(GOM), respondent, and North American Rubber Thread, petitioner.
The period of review is January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992
and affects entries made on or after March 31, 1992 and before April
28, 1992, and all entries made on or after August 25, 1992 through
December 31, 1992. For an explanation of entries covered, see the
``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.
This review involves four companies: Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil),
Filmax Sdn. Bhd. (Filmax), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. (Rubberflex), and
Filati Lastex Elastofibre Sdn. Bhd. (Filati). The review covers the
following programs:
(1) Pioneer Status.
(2) Export Credit Refinancing (ECR).
(3) Abatement of Income Tax Based on the Ratio of Export Sales to
Total Sales.
(4) Abatement of Five Percent of the Value of Indigenous Malaysian
Materials Used in Exports.
(5) Industrial Building Allowance.
(6) Double Deduction for Export Promotion Expenses.
(7) Rubber Discount Scheme.
(8) Investment Tax Allowance.
(9) Abatement of Five Percent of Taxable Income Due to Location in
a Promoted Industrial Area.
(10) Allowance of a Percentage of Net Taxable Income Based on the
F.O.B. Value of Export Sales.
(11) Double Deduction of Export Credit Insurance Payments.
(12) Abatement of Taxable Income of Five Percent of Adjusted Income
of Companies Due to Capital Participation and Employment Policy
Adherence.
(13) Preferential Financing for Bumiputras.
After consideration of the GOM's comments on the preliminary
results of review, the Department has recalculated the cash deposit to
account for the elimination of the Abatement of Five Percent of the
Value of Indigenous Malaysian Materials Used in Exports Program. In
addition, the Department recalculated the post-shipment financing
benefits to account for its inadvertent omission of certain
transactions. Accordingly, the Department determines the total bounty
or grant from all programs under review to be 3.30 percent ad valorem
for all companies.
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of extruded rubber
thread from Malaysia. Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized
rubber thread obtained by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural
rubber latex of any cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm,
which is 0.007 inch or 140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18
gauge, in diameter. During the review period, such merchandise was
classifiable under item number 4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number is provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
Calculation of Country-Wide Rate
We calculated the bounty or grant on a country-wide basis by first
calculating the bounty or grant for each company subject to the
administrative review. We then weight-averaged the bounty or grant
received by each company using as the weight its share of total
Malaysian extruded rubber thread exports to the United States,
including all companies, even those with de minimis or zero bounties or
grants. We then summed the individual companies' weight-averaged
bounties or grants to determine the bounty or grant from all programs
benefitting extruded rubber thread exports to the United States. Since
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 total bounty or grant calculated for each company
to determine whether individual company bounty or grant differed
significantly from the weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to
19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). In calculating the individual company rates
described above, only one rate was calculated for Heveafil and Filmax
because Heveafil and Filmax were related parties.
None of the companies received aggregate bounties or grants which
were significantly different within the meaning of 19 CFR
355.22(d)(3)(i). Therefore, the country-wide rate is based on the
weighted-average aggregate bounties or grants received by the companies
subject to this review.
Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: The GOM alleges that the Department initiated the
original investigation pursuant to Section 303(a)(2) of the Act, and,
therefore, the Department can impose countervailing duties under this
section only if there is an injury determination by the International
Trade Commission (ITC). (The ITC discontinued its injury determination
under Section 303(a)(2) because the duty-free status of rubber thread
from Malaysia was terminated.) The GOM contends that without an injury
determination, the Department had no authority to issue a
countervailing duty order and to require the bonds or cash deposits.
The GOM further maintains that the Department cannot simply transfer
the jurisdiction for an investigation from Section 303(a)(2) to Section
303(a)(1) without issuing a public notice that it intends to proceed
with the investigation under a different statutory provision. See,
Certain Textile Mill Products and Apparel from Turkey (50 FR 9817;
March 12, 1987); Certain Textile Mill Products and Apparel from the
Philippines (50 FR 1195; March 26, 1985) and Certain Textile Mill
Products and Apparel from Indonesia (50 FR 9861; March 12, 1985).
Furthermore, because there was no initiation notice or a preliminary
determination under section 303(a)(1), a final determination under that
section was not appropriate. If Commerce wanted to proceed with the
investigation, it was required to re-initiate under the appropriate
provision.
Petitioner argues that the Department has previously rejected the
GOM's claims and, therefore, they merit no more consideration.
Department's Position: The GOM's challenge to the Department's
authority to issue the order is untimely. Challenges to the issuance of
an order must be filed within 30 days of the date the order is
published. The countervailing duty order on extruded rubber thread from
Malaysia was published on August 25, 1992. The GOM voluntarily withdrew
a timely-filed complaint challenging the order on these same grounds.
The GOM's attempt to reverse that challenge in this proceeding is
untimely.
Comment 2: The GOM contends that the Department overstated the
benefit received under the ECR program in its administrative review.
The GOM argues that the Department must use the ``cost of funds'' to
the government as the benchmark as required by item ``k'' of the
Illustrative List of Export Subsidies annexed to the Subsidies Code,
and the appropriate ``cost of funds'' is the 90-day rate for government
bonds. The GOM asserts that if the Department instead uses the cost to
the recipient as a benchmark, it should continue its past practice and
use the bankers' [[Page 17517]] acceptances (BA) rates because they are
identical to ECR financing in terms of risk, maturity and purpose. The
GOM further contends that the Department should interpret the
``predominant'' form of financing as the most comparable form of
financing. It asserts that it makes no sense to compare trade financing
to other financing such as short-term loans and overdrafts.
Furthermore, if the Department uses the weighted-average of commercial
rates, it should account for the differences in the terms of financing.
Petitioner argues that it is the Department's practice to use the
national average short-term borrowing rate. It further argues that
companies cannot borrow at the government borrowing rate; therefore,
``cost of funds'' to the government is an improper benchmark.
Department's Position: We disagree with the GOM. The Illustrative
List identifies common forms of export subsidies but does not
necessarily instruct the Department how to value them. The Department
has a longstanding practice of valuing the benefit to the recipient
rather than the cost to the government for the purpose of calculating
countervailing duty rates.
The Department's practice is to use the rate for the predominant
form of short-term financing in the country under review as the
benchmark for short-term loans. See, Countervailing Duties; Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments (59 FR 23380; May
31, 1989) (Proposed Rules). Where there is no single predominant source
of short-term financing in the country in question, the Department may
use a benchmark composed of the interest rates for two or more sources
of short-term financing in the country in question. See, Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty
Order: Steel Wire Rope from Thailand (56 FR 46299; September 11, 1991).
BAs constitute an extremely small percentage of short-term financing in
Malaysia and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to use the BA rates
as a benchmark.
At verification, the GOM provided the Bank Negara Malaysia
Quarterly Bulletin, which lists the commercial bank base lending (BLR)
rates prevailing during the review period. The rates ranged from 9.97
percent to 10.29 percent. According to commercial bank officials, the
banks add a 1.00 to 2.00 percent spread to the BLR.
Therefore, we have determined that it is appropriate to continue to
use the average of the commercial BLR rates published in Bank Negara
Malaysia Quarterly Bulletin, plus an average 1.5 percent spread, as a
benchmark, in accordance with section 355.44(b)(3)(i) of the
Department's Proposed Rules.
Comment 3: The GOM argues that both Heveafil and Filmax
specifically excluded U.S. exports from the calculation of eligibility
for the pre-shipment export financing. In addition, the GOM claims that
the two companies did not use funds from exports to the United States
to repay any of the pre-shipment loans. The GOM claims that in a
similar situation, the Department concluded that exports to the United
States did not receive benefits from short-term financing. See,
Suspension of Countervailing Duty Investigation; Certain Forged Steel
Crankshafts from Brazil (52 FR 28177, 28179; July 28, 1987) (Brazilian
Crankshafts Suspension Agreement). Therefore, the GOM maintains that
the companies received no benefit with regard to U.S. shipments.
Petitioner argues that the exclusion of U.S. exports from the
eligibility calculation did not affect benefits received and,
therefore, the Department should dismiss the GOM's claim.
Department's Position: The GOM provides ECR financing based on
export performance. The explicit purpose of this program is to promote
the export of manufactured and approved agricultural products. Two
types of ECR financing are available: pre-shipment and post-shipment
financing. There is no evidence that the GOM limits these ECR loans to
increase exports to markets other than the United States, nor is there
any evidence of a provision that prevents exporters from receiving ECR
loans for exports to the United States. In fact, at verification we
found that Heveafil received an ECR post-shipment loan for a U.S.
export during the review period.
During the review period, both Heveafil and Filmax applied for and
used pre-shipment financing based on certificates of performance (CP).
Pre-shipment financing based on CPs is a line of credit based on
previous exports and cannot be tied to specific sales in specific
markets. Because pre-shipment loans were not shipment specific, we
included all loans in calculating the country-wide duty rate. By
excluding exports to the United States from their application for
export financing, the companies merely reduced the amount of financing
they received. In addition, at verification, company officials at the
Heveafil and Filmax rubber factories could not tie the rubber latex
purchased with the pre-shipment loans to products exported to
destinations other than the United States. The GOM incorrectly claims
that, in a similar situation in the Brazilian Crankshafts Suspension
Agreement, the Department concluded that no subsidy from the CACEX
short-term financing was provided on exports to the United States
because exporters agreed not to use that portion of any outstanding
CACEX pre-shipment loans certificates which were based on merchandise
exported to the United States. In fact, in the final determination of
Brazilian Crankshafts, the Department found the CACEX export financing
program to be countervailable. See, Final Countervailing Duty
Determination; Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From Brazil (52 FR
28254, 28255; October 15, 1987). Therefore, we affirm that pre-shipment
financing benefits all exports, including those to the United States.
Comment 4: The GOM argues that in calculating the benefit from the
post-shipment program the Department used the incorrect interest rates
for certain transactions made by Filmax and Rubberflex. Since interest
paid for such financing was broken out by interest rates charged by
specific banks, the Department should recalculate the benefit using the
applicable rates.
Department's Position: We agree and have made the adjustments
accordingly. In addition, we are including certain transactions made by
Rubberflex that we inadvertently omitted in our calculation of post-
shipment financing benefits. These changes increase the benefit from
this program from 0.0003 percent ad valorem to 0.11 percent ad valorem.
Comment 5: The GOM argues that in calculating the export abatement
benefit the Department should consider the actual tax savings in a
particular year. Therefore, the Department should consider the non-
countervailable deductions. If those non-countervailable deductions
equal the tax liability, then there is no benefit in the year in
question.
Petitioner argues that the GOM's claim ignores the fact that the
subsidy's existence permits tax benefits to be carried forward to other
years. Hence, the Malaysians do benefit from the export abatement
subsidy. Further, petitioner believes that it is reasonable to assume
that the Malaysians will take advantage of subsidy tax deductions.
Department's Position: Essentially the GOM has asked us to assume
that the non-countervailable allowances are used first, even if the
non-countervailable allowances can be carried forward, while the export
allowance cannot be carried forward. As we stated in the final
determination in the investigation, given this distinction, it is more
reasonable to assume that the [[Page 17518]] export abatement is used
first. See, Malaysian Final Determination. Therefore, we continue to
treat the export abatement as fully countervailable based on the tax
return filed in the year under review.
Comment 6: The GOM argues that since Heveafil and Filmax eliminated
U.S. exports from their application for the tax deduction under the
export abatement program, the Department cannot attribute any of the
tax abatement program to such exports. Citing section 355.47(a) of the
Proposed Rules, the GOM argues that the Department cannot find a
program countervailable unless its benefits are tied to the subject
merchandise.
Petitioner argues that the GOM's method of exclusion was illusory,
as it did not affect the benefits received.
Department's Position: In calculating the ratio of total exports to
total sales, Heveafil, the only company that claimed the abatement on
its income tax return filed in the review period, deducted the amount
of U.S. exports from both the numerator and denominator. In essence,
the companies merely prorated the benefit (i.e. adjusted downward using
the ratio of U.S. exports to total exports), since its calculation did
not significantly change the ratio applied to adjusted income to
determine its export abatement. The calculation methodology used by
Heveafil in its tax return did not eliminate the benefit attributable
to sales of U.S. exports. Therefore, we confirm our preliminary
determination that this program provides a countervailable benefit with
respect to exports of the subject merchandise.
Comment 7: The GOM argues that the Department assumed that the
entire deduction for all other export tax programs resulted in cash
savings in the year under investigation. Moreover, these programs are
unlike the export abatement in that they can be carried forward.
Department's Position: The companies under review earned several
types of allowances which may be used to offset taxable income. Each
year, the company calculates the total value of allowances to which it
is entitled. It then draws from this total the amount needed to
eliminate any tax liability in that year. If anything remains in the
pool, it can be carried forward to offset taxable income in future
years.
The specific allowances drawn from the pool in any given year are
not identified on the tax form. Therefore, it was necessary to develop
a methodology for estimating the portion of the allowance used in a
given year that is attributable to countervailable programs, and the
portion that is attributable to non-countervailable programs in order
to calculate the net bounty or grant.
As we did in the investigation, we assumed during this review that
the countervailable programs would be used first. Our rationale was to
consider that a central purpose of the countervailing duty law is to
encourage foreign governments not to provide countervailable subsidies.
In this review, this purpose can best be served by selecting the
remaining countervailable allowances before selecting any of the non-
countervailable allowances available to the companies.
In addition, if we treat a portion of the countervailable
allowances as having been used, other portions carried forward for
future use would also be countervailable when used. This means that we
would have to track allowances carried forward and trace from year to
year what portion of the allowances carried forward is countervailable.
To avoid an unadministerable system of tracking and tracing, we have
treated the countervailable portions as having been used in the year
under review.
Comment 8: The GOM argues that the Department previously found the
Pioneer Status Program not countervailable. See Carbon Steel Wire Rod
from Malaysia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review (Wire Rod from Malaysia) (56 FR 14927; April 12, 1991). The GOM
asserts that it is not countervailable because tax benefits under this
program are not limited to any sector or region of the Malaysian
economy, nor is the program exclusively available to exporting
companies. The GOM contends that the Department confirmed at
verification, both the de jure and de facto availability of this
program to the entire Malaysian economy, and that pioneer status tax
benefits are not targeted to specific industries or companies in a
discriminatory manner. Furthermore, the Department verified that the
internal guidelines used to grant pioneer status are characterized by
neutral criteria unrelated to exports, location or any other factors
that could require a determination that the program is countervailable.
The GOM further argues that the Department verified that the GOM
does not require export commitments, or view them as preponderant, in
evaluating applications; that export potential is merely one of 12
factors considered in granting status; and that a product will not be
accepted based on export potential alone. Furthermore, the GOM argues
that the Department verified that the Malaysian Government commonly
approves companies who do not make export commitments as well as some
who do make them. Therefore, market destination is irrelevant to
granting pioneer status.
Department's Position: In Wire Rod from Malaysia, we concluded that
no industry or group of industries used the program disproportionately
and found the program not to be countervailable. That determination,
however, did not specifically address situations where companies had a
specific export condition attached to their pioneer status approval. In
the Wire Rod investigation, petitioner raised the issue of an export
requirement. Although the requirement per se is not new, it was not at
issue with the companies investigated at the time.
As stated in the Malaysian Final Determination, we continue to view
the ``domestic'' side of the Pioneer Status Program to be not
countervailable. However, in this instance recipients of the tax
benefits conferred by this program can be divided into two categories:
industries and activities that will find market opportunities in
Malaysia and elsewhere, and those that face a saturated domestic
market. At verification, we established that an export requirement may
sometimes be applied to certain industries after it is determined that
the domestic market will no longer support additional producers. The
extruded rubber thread industry is among these industries.
The combination of the necessary export orientation of the industry
due to lack of domestic market opportunities and the explicit export
condition attached to pioneer status approval in the rubber thread
industry lead us to conclude that the ``export'' side of the Pioneer
Status Program constitutes an export subsidy to the rubber thread
industry. Whether or not the commitment was voluntary, as the GOM
suggests, the company has obligated itself to export a very large
portion of its production, and that commitment appears to have been an
important condition for approval of benefits. For further information,
see Malaysian Final Determination.
Comment 9: The GOM argues that the Department overstated the
benefit from the Pioneer Status Program because it fails to deduct
normal capital allowances that would have been allowed if the program
had not been used. The GOM claims that Rubberflex and Filmax, in fact,
received no cash benefits from this program. Furthermore, the
Department incorrectly allocated pioneer status tax benefits over only
export sales even though pioneer status tax benefits are also
applicable to profits on domestic [[Page 17519]] sales. According to
the GOM, this is consistent with the Department's practice to allocate
benefits over total sales to which they are ``tied.''
Petitioner argues that pioneer status tax benefits are for the
exports of the subject product. Thus, they are countervailable and
properly allocated only over export sales.
Department's Position: We have not overstated the benefit from the
Pioneer Status Program. When a company receives pioneer status, it is
allowed to stockpile normal capital allowances for use in future years.
Therefore, these allowances should not be used to offset current
benefits. Moreover, export sales should form the denominator because
receipt of pioneer status tax benefits for the companies under review
is contingent upon exportation. See section 355.47(a)(2) of the
Proposed Rules.
Comment 10: The GOM argues that the Rubber Discount Program ended
on December 31, 1991 and that exports on or after January 1, 1992 were
no longer eligible for rubber discount benefits. The GOM further argues
that in the original investigation, the Department determined that the
benefit from this program occurs at the time of export (not at the time
of receipt of the cash).
Therefore, exports after December 31, 1991 did not receive
benefits.
Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the benefit from the
program occurs at the time of receipt of the funds, as only then does
the company have the money to use.
Department's Position: We agree with respondent. In the preliminary
results, the Department determined that the benefits were conferred at
the time of export. Since the program was terminated effective January
1, 1992, and the last date exports were eligible for rebates was
December 30, 1991, no benefits were received from this program during
the review period. Our position remains unchanged from our preliminary
results.
Comment 11: The GOM contends that we should adjust the cash deposit
to reflect program-wide changes affecting future benefits: the
reduction in the abatement of income for exports, the elimination of
the development tax and the reduction of the corporate tax.
Petitioner argues that cash deposit should not differ from the
subsidy found in the review period, because the actual benefit is not
known until after the full investigation of the level of subsidization.
Department's Position: According to 19 CFR 355.50(a), the cash
deposit rate will be adjusted for program-wide changes (1) which occur
after the review period, but before the preliminary results are
published, and (2) which can be measured. The benefits of certain types
of programs are not always measurable. For example, in cases of certain
loan programs, there may be many factors affecting the subsidy rate,
not all of which can be quantified in advance. See, e.g., Certain
Textile Mill Products from Thailand, 52 FR 7636 (1987); and Textile
Mill Products from Mexico, 50 FR 10824 (1985); see, also, Live Swine
From Canada, 53 FR 22189 (1988).
In the instant review, the reduction of the corporate tax and the
elimination of the development tax are not program-wide changes, but
changes in one factor of the benefit calculation. In Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thereof from
Singapore Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
(56 FR 26384, 26386; June 7, 1991), regarding the reduction of the
corporate tax rate, we stated that ``there are a number of factors
other than the corporate tax rate which affect the benefit calculations
(i.e., total sales, total exports, adjusted profits, and investment
allowances). Since changes in these factors can offset one another, a *
* * reduction in the tax rate does not warrant a reduction in the cash
deposit rate.'' While the reduction in the corporate tax rate and the
elimination of the development tax may change the level of benefits
found for a tax program, these changes in the tax rates do not
constitute a program-wide change in a subsidy program under section
355.50 of the Proposed Rules.
The GOM also changed the abatement of income from exports programs
by reducing the abatement rates. While the reduction in the abatement
rates meets the definition of a ``program-wide change'' under section
355.50(b) of the Proposed Rules, that change cannot be measured.
Companies earn several types of general tax allowances which are not
under review and which may be used to offset taxable income. Each year,
the companies calculate the total value of allowances to which they are
entitled. They draw from the total allowances the amount needed to
eliminate any tax liability in that year. If anything remains in the
pool, it can be carried forward to offset taxable income in future
years. See, Department's Position to Comment 7. It is not known what
deductions companies have taken until the tax returns are filed, and it
is inappropriate to assume that the adjusted income would remain
constant in the year(s) subsequent to our review period. We do not have
information regarding the companies' current income and the
consequences of the adjusted income, and it would be inappropriate to
gather such information because that would, in essence, constitute a
new review. Therefore, we have not adjusted the cash deposit.
Unlike the above changes, we verified that the GOM has eliminated
the Abatement of Five Percent of the Value of Indigenous Malaysian
Materials Used in Exports Program. We consider this program to be a
program-wide change because it occurred before we published the
preliminary results and the change can be measured. We also verified
that there are no residual benefits. As such, we have adjusted the cash
deposit rate to reflect this change.
Comment 12: The GOM claims that Section 707 of the Act prohibits
the Department from ordering the collection of countervailing duties on
entries made on or after April 28, 1992 and before August 25, 1992.
Department's Position: We agree. See the ``Final Results of
Review'' section of this notice.
Final Results of Review
After considering all comments received, we determine the bounty or
grant to be 3.30 percent ad valorem for the period January 1, 1992
through December 31, 1992.
The Department issued the its preliminary affirmative
countervailable duty determination in the investigation on December 30,
1991 (56 FR 67276). However, the ITC terminated its injury
determination on Malaysian extruded rubber thread in light of the
revocation of duty-free status under the Generalized System of
Preferences, effective March 31, 1992. Therefore, as a result of the
ITC determination, the Department issued instructions to Customs to
liquidate entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption prior to March 31, 1992, without the
imposition of countervailing duties. (See Amended Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order;
Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia (58 FR 41084; August 2, 1993)).
In accordance with 705(a)(1) of the Act, the final determination in
the investigation was extended to coincide with the final antidumping
determination involving the same product from Malaysia (57 FR 38472;
August 25, 1992). Pursuant to section 705 of the Act and Article 5.3 of
the GATT Subsidies Code, we cannot require suspension of liquidation
for more than 120 days without the issuance of a countervailing duty
order. [[Page 17520]] Therefore, the Department instructed Customs to
terminate the suspension of liquidation on the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April
28, 1992. The Department reinstated suspension of liquidation and
required cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties of entries
made on or after August 25, 1992, the date of publication of the
countervailing duty order (57 FR 38472). As such, merchandise entered
on or after April 28, 1992 and before August 25, 1992 is to be
liquidated without regard to countervailing duties.
The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess
countervailing duties of 3.30 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice
price on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 31, 1992 and before
April 28, 1992, and on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 25,
1992 and exported on or before December 31, 1992.
The elimination of the Abatement of Five Percent of the Value of
Indigenous Malaysian Materials Used in Exports Program reduces the
total estimated duty deposit to 3.18 percent ad valorem. Therefore, the
Department will instruct the Customs Service to collect a cash deposit
of estimated countervailing duties of 3.18 percent ad valorem of the
f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of this merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this administrative review. This
deposit requirement will remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative review.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.
Dated: March 29, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-8513 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
