[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25623-25627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12871]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-533-063]
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain iron
metal castings from India. We preliminarily determine the net subsidy
to be zero or de minimis for Delta Enterprises and Super Iron Foundry,
and 5.45 percent ad valorem for all other companies for the period
January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. If the final results remain
the same as these preliminary results of administrative review, we will
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as
indicated above. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cassel or Lorenza Olivas,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 16, 1980, the Department published in the Federal
Register (45 FR 50739) the countervailing duty order on certain iron-
metal castings from India. On October 7, 1994, the Department published
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' (59 FR
51166) of this countervailing duty order. We received a timely request
for review from the Municipal Castings Fair Trade Council and
individually-named members on October 24, 1994.
We initiated the review, covering the period January 1, 1993
through December 31, 1993, on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 56549). The
review covers 14 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise and
six programs.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and
to the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as
they existed on December 31, 1994. However, references to the
Department's Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Request for Public Comments, 54 FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed
Regulations), are provided solely for further explanation of the
Department's countervailing duty practice. Although the Department has
withdrawn the particular rulemaking proceeding pursuant to which the
Proposed Regulations were issued, the subject matter of these
regulations is being considered in connection with an ongoing
rulemaking proceeding which, among other things, is intended to conform
the Department's regulations to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See
60 FR 80 (Jan. 3, 1995).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of Indian manhole
covers and frames, clean-out covers and frames, and catch basin grates
and frames. These articles are commonly called municipal or public
works castings and are used for access or drainage for public utility,
water, and sanitary systems. During the review period, such merchandise
was classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item
numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information
provided by the Government of India and, six producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise. We followed standard verification procedures,
including meeting with government and company officials, and
examination of relevant accounting and original source documents. Our
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the
verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit
(Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building).
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
In accordance with Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States,
853 F. Supp. 431 (CIT 1994), we calculated the net subsidy on a
country-wide basis by first calculating the subsidy rate for each
company subject to the administrative review. We then weight-averaged
the rate received by each company using as the weight its share of
total Indian exports to the United States of subject merchandise,
including all companies, even those with de minimis and zero rates. We
then summed the individual companies' weight-averaged rates to
determine the subsidy rate from all programs benefitting exports of
subject merchandise to the United States.
Since the country-wide rate calculated using this methodology was
above de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR Sec. 355.7 (1994), we proceeded
to the next step and examined the net subsidy rate calculated for each
company to determine whether individual company rates differed
significantly from the weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to
19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). Two companies (Delta Enterprises and Super Iron
Foundry) had significantly different net subsidy rates during the
review period pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). The rate for these
companies was zero. These companies are treated separately for
assessment and cash deposit purposes. All other companies are assigned
the country-wide rate.
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Conferring Subsidies
A. Programs Previously Determined to Confer Subsidies
1. Pre-Shipment Export Financing. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI),
[[Page 25624]]
through commercial banks, provides pre-shipment financing, or ``packing
credits,'' to exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed order or
letter of credit, exporters may receive pre-shipment loans for working
capital purposes, i.e., for the purchase of raw materials and for
packing, warehousing, and transporting of export merchandise. Exporters
may also establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they may draw
as needed. Credit line limits are established by commercial banks,
based upon the company's creditworthiness and past export performance.
Companies that have pre-shipment credit lines typically pay interest on
these loans on a quarterly basis on the outstanding balance of the
account at the end of each period. In general, packing credits are
granted for a period of up to 180 days.
In prior administrative reviews of this order, the Department found
this program to be de jure specific, and thus countervailable, because
receipt of pre-shipment export financing was contingent upon export
performance and the interest rates were preferential. (See e.g., Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-
Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 41658 (August 22, 1991); Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-Metal
Castings From India, 56 FR 52515 (October 21, 1991 (1987 and 1988
Indian Castings Final Results). No new information or evidence of
changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant
reconsideration of this finding. During the POR, the rate of interest
charged on pre-shipment export loans ranged from 13.0 percent to 15.5
percent, depending on the length and date of receipt of the loan.
The Government of India (GOI) classifies the companies under review
as small-scale industry companies. Therefore, as we have done in past
relevant cases, we used the small-scale industry short-term interest
rates published in the August 1994 Reserve Bank of India Annual Report
1993-94 as our benchmark. This rate was 15 percent during the POR for
all categories of advances. We compared this benchmark to the interest
rate charged on pre-shipment loans and found that for certain loans
granted under this program, the interest rate charged was lower than
the benchmark. The use of this benchmark rate is consistent with prior
reviews of this order. (See Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 60 FR
44843 (August 29, 1995) (1991 Indian Castings Final Results)).
Eight of the fourteen respondent companies used pre-shipment export
loans for shipments of subject castings to the United States during the
POR. To calculate the benefit from the pre-shipment loans to these
eight companies, we compared the actual interest paid on these loans
with the amount of interest that would have been paid using the
benchmark interest rate of 15 percent. If the benchmark rate exceeded
the program rate, the difference between those amounts is the benefit.
If a company was able to segregate pre-shipment financing applicable to
subject merchandise exported to the United States, we divided the
benefit derived from only those loans by total exports of subject
merchandise to the United States. If a firm was unable to segregate
pre-shipment financing, we divided the benefit from all pre-shipment
loans by total exports. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the
net subsidy from this program to be 0.13 percent ad valorem for all
manufacturers and exporters in India of certain iron-metal castings,
except for those firms listed below which have significantly different
total subsidies from all programs combined. The net subsidy for those
firms is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprises.......................................... 0.00
Super Iron Foundry......................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Post-Shipment Export Financing and Post-Shipment Credit
Denominated in Foreign Currency (PSCFC). The Reserve Bank of India,
through commercial banks, provides post-shipment rupee denominated
loans to exporters upon presentation of export documents. Post-shipment
financing also consists of bank discounting of foreign customer
receivables. In general, post-shipment loans are granted for a period
of up to 180 days. The interest rate for post-shipment financing ranged
from 13 to 18 percent during the POR. In the 1987 and 1988 Indian
Castings Final Results, the Department found this program to be
specific, and thus countervailable, because receipt of the post-
shipment export financing in rupees was contingent upon export
performance and the interest rates were preferential. No new
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in
this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.
On January 1, 1992, the GOI amended the original post-shipment
financing scheme and introduced the ``Scheme for Post-Shipment Credit
Denominated in Foreign Currency (PSCFC).'' Under the amended scheme,
exporters may discount foreign currency export bills at interest rates
linked to the London Interbank Offering Rate (LIBOR). These loans are
not provided to the borrower in the foreign currency, but allow the
post-shipment credit liability of the exporter to be denominated in
foreign currency, which is then liquidated with foreign currency export
proceeds.
Upon presentation of the export bill, the bank will discount the
bill for a period of up to 180 days at an interest rate determined by
the RBI. The interest amount, calculated at the applicable foreign
currency interest rate, will be deducted from the total amount of the
bill, and the exporter's account will be credited for the rupee
equivalent of the net foreign currency amount. Commercial banks are
required to convert the net amount of the export bill drawn or
expressed in U.S. dollars into rupees at a contracted exchange rate (if
the exporter takes forward cover) or at the rate prevailing on the date
of negotiation or discount by the bank. The exporter's credit liability
will continue to be shown in U.S. dollars. If payment from the overseas
customer is received within the due date for the loan, the exporter's
account is considered fully liquidated or ``crystallized''. Where
payment by the overseas customer is made beyond the due date,
additional interest will be recovered from the exporter for the number
of days payment is overdue. The additional interest amount is
calculated in U.S. dollars for the delayed period at the overdue
foreign currency interest rate set by the RBI. This amount is then
converted into rupees at the commercial bank's prevailing selling rate
of the U.S. dollar and deducted from the exporter's account.
Any exchange rate risk on the dollar amount of the bill (i.e., gain
or loss due to the change in value of the rupee vis-a-vis the dollar)
will be borne by the commercial bank. If the overseas customer
defaults, the exporter must repay the rupee equivalent of the export
bill at the exchange rate prevailing on the date the payment of the
export bill would have been due. During the POR, the discount rate
charged on these bills ranged from 6.5 percent to 6.75 percent, while
the overdue foreign currency interest rate was 8.5 percent. For overdue
bills repaid beyond 180 days, the normal rupee interest rates apply.
These rates ranged from 15 to 22 percent during the POR.
For reasons stated in the prior section for pre-shipment financing
above, we are using the small-scale industry short-term interest rates
published in the
[[Page 25625]]
August 1994 Reserve Bank of India Annual Report 1993-94 as our
benchmark for short-term rupee denominated post-shipment loans.
However, because loans under this program are discounted, and the
effective rate paid by exporters on these loans is a discounted rate,
we derived a benchmark discount rate of 13.04 percent for the POR.
Where loans are denominated in foreign currency, as is the case for
PSCFC loans, our normal practice is to use a foreign currency
benchmark, which would be the interest rate on alternative dollar-
indexed loans in India. However, we have not been able to find such a
benchmark, and must, therefore, use as a benchmark a rupee-denominated
interest rate, adjusted to take into account movements in the rupee-
dollar exchange rate over the term of the loan. In this situation, our
preference would be to adjust the benchmark by the ``expected''
movement in the rupee/dollar exchange rate by comparing the spot rate
on the day the bill was discounted with the forward exchange rate.
Because we were unable to find forward exchange rates for the POR, we
adjusted the benchmark used for rupee denominated post-shipment loans
described above, by the actual movement in the rupee/dollar exchange
rate over the period for which the export bill was discounted.
Therefore, the adjusted benchmark varied for each PSCFC loan.
During the POR, 11 of the 14 respondent companies made payments on
post-shipment export or PSCFC loans for shipments of subject castings
to the United States. To calculate the benefit from these loans we
followed the same short-term loan methodology discussed above for pre-
shipment financing. We divided the benefit by either total exports or
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States, depending on
whether the company was able to segregate the post-shipment financing
on the basis of destination of the exported good. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to be 1.25
percent ad valorem for all manufacturers and exporters in India of
certain iron-metal castings, except for those firms listed below which
have significantly different total subsidies from all programs
combined. The net subsidy for those firms is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprises.......................................... 0.00
Super Iron Foundry......................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Income Tax Deductions Under Section 80HHC. Under section 80HHC
of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters to deduct profits
derived from the export of goods and merchandise from taxable income.
In the 1987 and 1988 Indian Castings Final Results, the Department
found this program to de jure specific, and thus countervailable,
because receipt of benefits was contingent upon export performance. No
new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted
in this proceeeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.
To calculate the benefit to each company, we subtracted the total
amount of income tax the company actually paid during the review period
from the amount of tax the company would have paid during the review
period had it not claimed any deductions under section 80HHC. We then
divided this difference by the value of the company's total exports. On
this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this
program to be 3.64 percent for all manufacturers and exporters in India
of certain iron-metal castings, except for those firms listed below
which have significantly different total subsidies from all programs
combined. The net subsidy for those firms is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprises.......................................... 0.00
Super Iron Foundry......................................... 0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Import Mechanisms. The GOI allows companies to transfer certain
types of import licenses to other companies in India. During the POR,
producers/exporters of subject castings sold Additional Licenses,
Replenishment Licenses, and Special Import Licenses. In prior
administrative reviews of this order, we determined that the sale of
these licenses by exporters is countervailable. See the 1987 and 1988
Indian Castings Final Results and the 1991 Indian Castings Final
Results. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has
been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this
finding.
Because the sale of Special Import Licenses and Additional Licenses
could not be tied to specific shipments, we calculated the subsidies by
dividing the total amount of proceeds a company received from sales of
these licenses by the total value of its exports of all products to all
markets. Also, because sales of Replenishment Licenses can be tied to
specific exports, we calculated the subsidies by dividing the amount of
proceeds a company received from sales of Replenishment Licenses that
was attributable to shipments of subject castings to the United States
by the total value of the company's exports of subject castings to the
United States. We do not consider the sale of Replenishment Licenses
issued for non-subject merchandise to have benefitted exports of the
subject merchandise.
We preliminarily determine the net subsidy from the sale of
Additional, Special Import, and Replenishment Licenses to be 0.04
percent ad valorem for all manufacturers and exporters in India of
certain iron-metal castings, except for those firms listed below which
have significantly different aggregate benefits. The net subsidies for
those firms are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprises.......................................... 0.00
Super Iron Foundry......................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. New Programs Preliminarily Found to Confer Subsidies
1. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes. At verification,
the GOI and commercial bank officials explained that starting from
September, 1991, commercial banks were required to pay a 3 percent tax
on all interest accrued from borrowers. This tax is passed on to
borrowers in its entirety. As of April 1, 1993, the GOI exempted from
the interest tax all interest accruing or arising to any commercial
bank on loans and advances made to any exporter as export credit. See
the 1993 GOI Verification Report at 6-7 and Exhibits EEPC-8, 9, 10 and
11 (October 30, 1995) (Public Document). Because only interest accruing
or arising on loans and advances made to exporters in the form of
export credit is exempt from the interest tax, we preliminarily
determine this exemption to provide countervailable benefits to
exporters. During the POR, eleven of the fourteen respondent companies
made interest payments on export related loans, through the pre- and
post-shipment financing schemes.
To calculate the benefit to each company, we first determined the
total amount of interest paid by each producer/exporter of subject
castings from April 1 to December 31, 1993, by adding all interest
payments made on pre- and post-shipment loans after April 1, 1993. For
the two companies that reported aggregate interest on pre- and post-
shipment loans for the POR, and for which we were unable to determine
what portion of the reported interest was paid after April 1, 1993, we
[[Page 25626]]
assumed that the company's interest payments were evenly distributed
over each quarter of 1993, and, therefore, that 75 percent of the
interest reported was paid in the last three quarters of 1993, i.e.,
from April 1 through December 31. Next, we multiplied this amount by
three percent, the amount of tax that the interest would have been
subject to without the exemption. We then divided the benefit by the
value of the company's total exports or exports of subject merchandise
to the United States, depending on whether the export financing was on
total exports or only exports of subject castings to the U.S. On this
basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy from this program to
be 0.06 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers and exporters in India
of certain iron-metal casting, except for those firms listed below
which have significantly different total subsidies from all programs
combined. The net subsidy for those firms is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprises.......................................... 0.00
Super Iron Foundry......................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Imports Made Under an Advance License through the Liberalized
Exchange Rate Management System (LERMS). The Liberalized Exchange Rate
Management System or LERMS, in effect from March 1, 1992 through
February 28, 1993, was part of the GOI's economic liberalization
efforts, aimed in part at achieving full convertibility of the rupee.
Under the LERMS, the importation of goods under the Duty Exemption
Scheme (with Advance Licences), was financed at two rates: 40 percent
at the official RBI rate and 60 percent at the (higher) market
determined rate. We verified that the LERMS was terminated effective
February 28, 1993, after which all foreign exchange earnings and the
financing of all imports was at the full market exchange rate. (See
section II.1. below for a discussion of foreign exchange earnings under
the LERMS).
While the LERMS was in effect, purchases of most imports are made
at the market exchange rate. This applied to both exporters and non-
exporters. An exception to this were goods imported under the Duty
Exemption Scheme which permitted exporters holding an Advance License
to purchase imports at dual exchange rates through February 28, 1993.
Sixty percent of the value of the import was charged at the market rate
and forty percent at the Reserve Bank determined official dollar/rupee
exchange rate. The Advance License was the only license under which
imports were charged at the 60/40 ratio. These licenses allow exporters
to import products duty free, that are subsequently consumed in the
production of exported goods. Castings exporters used Advance Licenses
by the importation of pig iron consumed in the production of the
subject merchandise.
The receipt of these licenses was previously determined to be not
countervailable, because the Advance License operates as duty drawback
scheme, and the drawback of import duties on raw materials consumed in
the production of exported goods was found to be not excessive. See the
1991 Indian Castings Final Results. However, Advance Licenses are
issued to companies based on their status as exporters. As such,
provisions under the LERMS which allow exporters to import goods at
exchange rates more favorable than those available to non-exporters
constitutes an export subsidy within the meaning of Sec. 355.43(a)(1)
of the Department's Proposed Regulations. Therefore, because the
official rupee/dollar exchange rate was lower than the market rate
during the POR, thereby lowering the cost of goods imported under an
Advance License during January and February of 1993, we preliminarily
determine the importation of goods under an Advance License at the 60/
40 ratio to provide countervailable benefits to producers/exporters of
the subject merchandise.
During the POR, three of the fourteen respondent companies made
imports against an Advance License while the LERMS was still in effect.
To calculate the benefit to each company, we subtracted the total
amount the company paid in rupees for the imported goods from the
amount they would have paid if the imports had been paid for at the
higher market exchange rate. We then divided the benefit by the value
of the company's total exports. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidy from this program to be 0.33 percent ad
valorem for all manufacturers and exporters in India of certain iron-
metal castings, except for those firms listed below which have
significantly different total subsidies from all programs combined. The
net subsidy for those firms is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprises.......................................... 0.00
Super Iron Foundry......................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we verified that this program was terminated as of February
28, 1993, and there are no residual benefits, for cash deposit
purposes, in accordance with section Sec. 355.50 of the Department's
Proposed Regulations, the deposit rate for this program will be zero.
II. Programs Preliminarily Found Not to Confer Subsidies
1. Inward Exchange Remittances under the Liberalized Exchange Rate
Management System (LERMS). The Liberalized Exchange Rate Management
System or LERMS, in effect from March 1, 1992 through February 28,
1993, was part of the GOI's economic liberalization efforts, partly
aimed at achieving full convertibility of the rupee. Under the LERMS,
all inward exchange remittances, i.e., foreign exchange earnings, were
converted into rupees either at the market exchange rate or at dual
exchange rates: 40 percent at the official RBI rate and 60 percent at
the (higher) market determined rate. We verified that the LERMS was
terminated effective February 28, 1993, after which all foreign
exchange remittances and the financing of all imports was at the full
market exchange rate. (For a discussion of import financing under the
LERMS, see I.B.2. above.) During January and February of 1993, while
the LERMS was in effect, castings exporters converted all of their
export earnings at the 60/40 exchange rate ratio described above.
Because all transactions by which Indian companies or individuals
exchanged foreign currency into rupees while the LERMS was in effect
were converted at the 60/40 exchange rate ratio or at the higher market
exchange rate, we preliminarily determine that the export earnings of
castings producers, converted at the dual exchange rates under LERMS,
do not confer countervailable benefits with respect to the subject
merchandise.
III. Programs Preliminarily Found Not To Be Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily find that the
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or
receive benefits under these programs during the period of review:
1. Market Development Assistance (MDA)
2. Rediscounting of Export Bills Abroad
3. International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS)
4. Cash Compensatory Support Program (CCS)
5. Pre-Shipment Financing in Foreign Currency (PSFC)
[[Page 25627]]
Preliminary Results of Review
For the period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, we
preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be zero or de minimis for
Delta Enterprises and Super Iron Foundry, and 5.45 percent ad valorem
for all other companies. In accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate less
than 0.5 percent ad valorem is de minimis.
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess the following countervailing duties:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Enterprises.......................................... 0.00
Super Iron Foundry......................................... 0.00
All Other Companies........................................ 5.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties of zero
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject
merchandise from Delta Enterprises and Super Iron Foundry, and 5.13
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject
merchandise from all other companies.
Public Comment
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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. Parties who
submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. 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 19 CFR 355.38(e).
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, under 19 CFR Sec. 355.38(c), are due. 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 or at a hearing.
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
Sec. 355.22.
Dated: May 14, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12871 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
