94-11970. Leather Wearing Apparel From Mexico; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-11970]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: May 17, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
    [(C-201-001)]
    
     
    
    Leather Wearing Apparel From Mexico; Preliminary Results of 
    Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
    
    AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration 
    Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty 
    administrative review.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
    review of the countervailing duty order on leather wearing apparel from 
    Mexico. We preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate to be zero for 
    the 65 companies listed in the Appendix and 13.35 percent ad valorem 
    for all other companies for the period January 1, 1992 through December 
    31, 1992. We invite interested parties to comment on these results.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 1994.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Dana Mermelstein, 
    Office of Countervailing Compliance, International Trade 
    Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington DC 20230; 
    telephone: (202) 482-2786.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On April 9, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
    published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
    Administrative Review'' (58 FR 18374) of the countervailing duty order 
    on leather wearing apparel from Mexico (46 FR 21357; April 10, 1981). 
    On April 30, 1993, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union 
    (ACTWU), whose members produce leather wearing apparel, requested an 
    administrative review of the order. We initiated the review, covering 
    the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, on May 27, 1993 
    (58 FR 30769).
    
    Scope of Review
    
        Imports covered by this review are shipments of Mexican leather 
    wearing apparel. These products include leather coats and jackets for 
    men, boys, women, girls, and infants, and other leather apparel 
    products including leather vests, pants, and shorts. Also included are 
    outer leather shells and parts and pieces of leather wearing apparel. 
    This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 
    Schedule (HTS) item numbers 4203.10.4030, 4203.10.4060, 4203.10.4085 
    and 4203.10.4095. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
    Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
        The review covers the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 
    1992 and eight programs.
    
    Analysis of Programs
    
        In the questionnaire responses, the Government of Mexico (GOM) 
    certified that 65 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise did 
    not receive benefits from any of the programs under review during the 
    review period (the list of these 65 companies is provided in the 
    Appendix). As a result, we preliminarily determine that those 
    producers/exporters of leather wearing apparel did not receive benefits 
    from the following programs during the 1992 review period:
    
    (A) BANCOMEXT Loans and Export Financing.
    (B) Certificates of Fiscal Promotion (CEPROFI).
    (C) FOGAIN.
    (D) FONEI.
    (E) State Tax Incentives.
    (F) PITEX.
    (G) Import Duty Reductions and Exemptions.
    (H) Article 15 Loans.
    
    Best Information Available
    
        IM-146 import statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau show 
    that the value of subject merchandise imported from Mexico under the 
    HTS item numbers listed above during the review period is $5,490,000. 
    Both the official export statistics reported by the GOM and the sum of 
    total exports of the subject merchandise exported to the United States 
    during the review period reported by the responding companies comprise 
    only a small fraction of this figure. The GOM was unable to reconcile 
    this discrepancy. (See April 22, 1994 Memorandum for the 1992 
    Administrative Review of Leather Wearing Apparel from Mexico, on file 
    in the public file of the Central Records Unit, room B-099.) Although 
    the GOM was requested to provide information on all exporters of the 
    subject merchandise to the United States, the exporters identified by 
    the GOM account for substantially less than 100 percent of exports of 
    the subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, in accordance 
    with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we 
    are assigning to any exporters of subject merchandise not listed in the 
    Appendix, a rate based on best information available (BIA). As BIA, we 
    used the highest total subsidy rate calculated in any previous 
    administrative review of this order or in the investigation. On this 
    basis, we preliminarily determine the rate for all exporters not listed 
    in the Appendix to be 13.35 percent ad valorem. See Leather Wearing 
    Apparel from Mexico; Final Results of Administrative Review of 
    Countervailing Duty Order (48 FR 13474; March 31, 1983).
    
    Calculation of Country-Wide Rate
    
        In calculating the subsidy rates during the review period, we 
    followed the methodology described in the preamble to 19 CFR 355.20(d) 
    (53 FR 52306 and 52325; December 27, 1988). To calculate a country-wide 
    rate, we weight-averaged the rate for the 65 companies for which the 
    GOM provided certifications of non-use with the BIA rate for the 
    remaining value of U.S. imports.
        In determining the weights used, the Department used the sum of the 
    65 responding companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the 
    United States. This figure was then subtracted from the total value of 
    imports of subject merchandise to the United States. The resulting 
    difference is the value for exports to the United States of the subject 
    merchandise that we assigned to all other companies.
        The 65 responding companies' weights were the ratio of the value of 
    their exports of the subject merchandise to the United States to the 
    total value of the subject merchandise imported into the United States. 
    For the non-respondent companies, the weight used was the ratio of 
    their assigned value of exports of the subject merchandise to the 
    United States to the total value of imports of the subject merchandise 
    into the United States.
        The Department then multiplied the respondent companies' ratio by 
    the calculated ad valorem rate found for the programs determined to be 
    bounties or grants (i.e., zero); we multiplied the non-respondent 
    companies' ratio by the 13.35 percent BIA rate. By adding the two 
    results, the Department calculated a weighted average country-wide rate 
    of 9.01 percent.
        Following the Department's practice, all companies with a rate 
    significantly different from the weighted average country-wide rate 
    were removed before calculating the all-other country-wide rate. 
    Because the rate for the respondent companies is significantly 
    different, they were removed and will receive their respective rates of 
    zero. As the only remaining companies, the non-respondents' rate of 
    13.35 percent necessarily comprises the all-other country-wide rate. 
    Therefore, the non-respondent companies (all those not listed in the 
    Appendix) will receive the all-other country-wide rate of 13.35 percent 
    ad valorem for subject merchandise exported during the review period.
    
    Preliminary Results of Review
    
        As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the net 
    subsidy rate to be zero for the 65 companies listed in the Appendix and 
    13.35 percent ad valorem for all other companies during the period 
    January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992.
        Upon completion of this review, the Department intends to instruct 
    the Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as follows for 
    subject merchandise exported on or after January 1, 1992, and on or 
    before December 31, 1992: Zero on shipments from any of the 65 
    companies listed in the Appendix; and 13.35 percent of the f.o.b. 
    invoice price on shipments from all other companies.
        The Department also intends to instruct the Customs Service to 
    waive cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, as provided by 
    section 751(a)(1) of the Act, on shipments of this merchandise from the 
    companies listed in the Appendix, and to collect a cash deposit of 
    13.35 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on shipments from all other 
    companies from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
    consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of 
    this administrative review.
        Interested parties may request a hearing not later than 10 days 
    after the date of publication of this notice (See 19 CFR 355.38(b)). 
    Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these 
    preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal 
    briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted 
    seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Any hearing, 
    if requested, will be held seven days after the scheduled date for 
    submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal 
    briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 
    355.38(e) of the Commerce regulations.
        Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
    of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
    later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
    becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
    the case briefs are due (See 19 CFR 355.34(b)(1)(iii)).
        The Department will publish the final results of this 
    administrative review including the results of its analysis of issues 
    raised in any case or rebuttal brief.
        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: May 9, 1994.
    Susan G. Esserman,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    
    Appendix
    
    1. Alfredo Costuras Originales S.A. De C.V.
    2. Aeroenvios De Mexico S.A. De C.V.
    3. Articulos De Piel De Guadalajara S.A. De C.V.
    4. Bemisa S.A. De C.V.
    5. Calzado Emege S.A. De C.V.
    6. Cornell Piel S.A. De C.V.
    7. Exclusive Design In Leather Felle S. De R.L.
    8. Articulos Charros Y Vaqueros S.A. De C.V.
    9. Importaciones Y Exportaciones Anaf S.A. De C.V.
    10. Lusomoda De Mexico S.A. De C.V.
    11. Loredano S.A. De C.V.
    12. Manufacturera California S.A. De C.V.
    13. Melmex S. De R.L.
    14. Originales Hechos A Mano S.A. De C.V.
    15. Price Club De Mexico S.A. De C.V.
    16. Procopiel Exotica S.A. De C.V.
    17. Pelet Jalisco-Baja California S.A. De C.V.
    18. Servicio Harley Davidaon S.A. De C.V.
    19. San Sebastian Curte S.A. De C.V.
    20. Tapetes Tipicos S.A. De C.V.
    21. United Parcel Service De Mexico S.A. De C.V.
    22. Zuid De Mexico S.A. De C.V.
    23. Pedro Alarcon Roman
    24. Juan Martin Aguilla Alvarez
    25. Rosa Isela Bocanegra Morales
    26. Agustin Carillo Castillo
    27. Gregoria Deitz Groswirte
    28. Maria Azucena Flores Martinez
    29. Rocio Gallardo
    30. Jose Garcia
    31. Enrique Garcia Avila
    32. Antonio Garcia Gonzalez
    33. Juan Manuel Garcia Gonzalez
    34. Jose De Jesus Gonzalez De La Torre
    35. Vicente Haro Navarro
    36. Lino Salvador Hernandez Gonzalez
    37. Jose De Jesus Hernandez Herrera
    38. M. Teresa De Jesus Hernandez Rodriguez
    39. Francisco Javier Hurtado Vasquez
    40. Antonio Hurtado
    41. J. Cruz Lopez Avila
    42. Noe Martinez Bautista
    43. Roberto Martinez Castillo
    44. Guillermo Martinez Fernandez
    45. Bartolo Morales Hernandez
    46. Ismael Mora Hernandez
    47. J. Cruz Orozco Alviso
    48. Adolfo Penilla
    49. Rosa Ramos
    50. Salvador Rios Bueno
    51. Jose Luis Rodriguez Juarez
    52. J. Guadalupe Rodriguez Ortiz
    53. Leonel Salceda Toledo
    54. Martin Humberto Serrano Robles
    55. Alejandro Sidransky Marcus
    56. Marco Antonio Sotelo Salazar
    57. Jose Sotelo
    58. Juan Antonio Torres Torres
    59. Laura Vilches Mares
    60. Ricardo Zaragoza Gutierrez
    61. Teresa Zedillo Lagos
    62. George Zohn Tracktman
    63. Exclusivos Baez
    64. Commercializadora Cevis S.A. De C.V.
    65. Cia. Exportadora De Chapala S.A. De C.V.
    
    [FR Doc. 94-11970 Filed 5-16-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/17/1994
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty administrative review.
Document Number:
94-11970
Dates:
May 17, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: May 17, 1994, (C-201-001)