97-17946. Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 36771-36772]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-17946]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [C-351-406]
    
    
    Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; 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 
    agricultural tillage tools from Brazil. We preliminarily determine the 
    net subsidy to zero percent ad valorem from Marchesan for the period 
    January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. If the final results remain 
    the same as these preliminary results of administrative review, we 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, 1995 and on or before 
    December 31, 1995. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
    preliminary results. (See Public Comment section of this notice.)
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 1997.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, 
    Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
    Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
    Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
    3338 or (202) 482-2786.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On October 22, 1985, the Department published in the Federal 
    Register (57 FR 42743) the countervailing duty order on certain 
    agricultural tillage tools from Brazil. On October 1, 1996, the 
    Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
    Administrative Review'' (61 FR 51259) of this countervailing duty 
    order. We received a timely request for review, and we initiated the 
    review, covering the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, 
    on November 15, 1996 (61 FR 58513).
        In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a), this review covers only those 
    producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review 
    was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers Marchesan 
    Implementos Agricolas, S.A. (Marchesan). This review also covers five 
    programs.
    
    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). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
    Department's regulations are to regulations, as amended by the interim 
    regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 
    25130). The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
    accordance with section 751(a) of 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.
    
    Partial Revocation
    
        On October 30, 1996, Marchesan requested an administrative review 
    pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(a)(2), and partial revocation of the 
    countervailing duty order with regard to Marchesan pursuant to 19 CFR 
    355.25. After examining Marchesan's request, the Department determined 
    that the company did not meet the minimum revocation requirements of 
    Sec. 355.25(b)(3).
        Under 19 CFR 355.25(b)(3), in order to be considered for 
    revocation, a producer or exporter must have participated in, and been 
    found to have received no subsidies for, five consecutive review 
    periods with no intervening review period for which a review was not 
    conducted. In October 1992, Marchesan requested an administrative 
    review for 1991. Subsequently, Marchesan withdrew its request and the 
    Department terminated the administrative review for 1991 (59 FR 56067) 
    and there was no administrative review in 1992. Therefore, because 
    Marchesan has participated in only three consecutive administrative 
    reviews in the past five years, we preliminarily determine that 
    Marchesan has not satisfied the five consecutive review periods 
    requirement. In addition, with its request for revocation, a company 
    must submit both government and company certifications that the company 
    neither applied for nor received any net subsidy during the period of 
    review and will not apply for or receive any net subsidy in the future, 
    as well as the agreement described in 19 CFR 355.25.(a)(3)(iii). 
    Marchesan did not provide either the government certification or the 
    company agreement required by the Department's regulations. Therefore, 
    Marchesan did not meet the threshold requirements for revocation. (See 
    letter from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of CVD/AD Enforcement 
    VI, dated December 10, 1996, which is a public document on file in the 
    Central Records Unit (room B-009 of the Department of Commerce)).
    
    Analysis of Programs
    
    I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used
    
        We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
    Marchesan did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs 
    during the period of review:
        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. Preferencial Financing under PROEX (formerly under Resolution 68 
    and 509 through FINEX).
        E. Preferencial Financing under FINEP.
    
    Preliminary Results of Review
    
        For the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, we 
    preliminarily determine the net subsidy for Marchesan to be zero 
    percent ad valorem. 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 liquidate, without regard to countervailing 
    duties, shipments of the subject merchandise from Marchesan exported on 
    or after January 1, 1995, and on or before December 31, 1995.
        The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect a cash
    
    [[Page 36772]]
    
    deposit of estimated countervailing duties of zero percent ad valorem, 
    as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, on all shipments of 
    this merchandise from Marchesan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 
    for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final 
    results of this administrative review.
        Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor or 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. 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 the most recent company-specific or country-
    wide rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all 
    non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates 
    is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1995 through 
    December 31, 1995, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed 
    companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at 
    the time of entry.
    
    Public Comment
    
        Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation 
    methodology and interested parties may request a hearing no 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.
        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 355.38, 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)).
    
        Dated: July 1, 1997.
    Robert S. LaRussa,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 97-17946 Filed 7-8-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/9/1997
Published:
07/09/1997
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty administrative review.
Document Number:
97-17946
Dates:
July 9, 1997.
Pages:
36771-36772 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
C-351-406
PDF File:
97-17946.pdf