(Cite as: 63 FR 52684)
NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-351-406]
Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
Thursday, October 1, 1998
*52684
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative review.
SUMMARY: On July 13, 1998, 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, 1996 through December 31, 1996 (63 FR 37532). The Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. For information on the net subsidy for Marchesan Implementos Agricolas, S.A. ("Marchesan"), the reviewed company, and for all non-reviewed companies, please see the Final Results of Review section of this notice. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties, all shipments of the subject merchandise from Marchesan, as detailed in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1998.
*52685
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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. On October 31, 1997, Marchesan requested a review and revocation from the countervailing duty order. Accordingly, this review covers Marchesan. This review also covers the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 and five programs. In the preliminary results, we determined that the company did not have the requisite period of zero or de minimis subsidies to justify revocation from the countervailing duty order. See Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 37533 (July 13, 1998). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. We received no comments from any of the parties and our determination that Marchesan is not eligible for revocation remains unchanged in these final results.
Applicable Statute
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"). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Also, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (62 FR 27296; May 19, 1997).
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
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 Brasil;
D. Preferential Financing under PROEX (formerly under Resolution 68 and 509
through FINEX);
E. Preferential Financing under FINEP.
We did not receive any comments on these programs from the interested parties, and our review of the record has not led us to change our findings from the preliminary results.
Final Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221, we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this 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. Accordingly, the Department intends to instruct Customs to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, shipments of the subject merchandise from Marchesan exported on or after January 1, 1996, and on or before December 31, 1996. Also, the cash deposits required for this company will be zero. 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 §777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), 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 C.F.R. §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. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rates for those companies established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable. See Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools from Brazil; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 48692 (September 20, 1995). This previously established rate shall apply to all non- reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested and completed. In addition, for the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, 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. 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 issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).
Dated: September 24, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.