48 FR 52111
NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-475-008]
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Forged Undercarriage
Components from Italy
Wednesday, November 16, 1983
*52111
AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: We have determined that certain benefits which constitute
*52112
subsidies within the meaning of the countervailing duty law are being
provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Italy of semifinished
forged undercarriage components described in the "Scope of Investigation" section
of this notice. The net subsidy is 1.37 percent ad valorem. The U.S. International
Trade Commission will determine whether imports are materially injuring or
threatening to materially injure a U.S. industry, within 45 days after publication of
this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 16, 1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland L. MacDonald or Deborah A.
Semb, Office of Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.
20230, telephone (202) 377-3534.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Based upon our investigation, we have
determined that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of
section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are being provided to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Italy of semifinished forged
undercarriage components, as described in the "Scope of Investigation" section of
this notice.
The following programs were found to confer subsidies:
Rebates of indirect taxes.
Pricing on forging quality steel.
We determine the net subsidy to be 1.37 percent ad valorem.
Case History
On April 29, 1983, we received a petition from counsel for Jernberg Forgings Co.,
Lindell Drop Forge Co., Portec, Inc., Presrite Corp., Presrite of Jefferson, Inc., Walco
Metal Forming Group, and Walker Forge, Inc. filed on behalf of the U.S. industry
producing forged undercarriage components. The petition alleged that certain
benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act are
being provided, directly or indirectly, to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in
Italy of forged undercarriage components. We found the petition to contain
sufficient grounds upon which to initiate a countervailing duty investigation,
and on May 24, 1983, we initiated an investigation (48 FR 23288). At that time, we
stated that we expected to issue a preliminary determination by July 25, 1983. We
subsequently determined that the case was "extraordinarily complicated" as defined
in section 703(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and postponed our preliminary determination
until August 25, 1983 (48 FR 28564).
Since Italy is a "country under the Agreement" within the meaning of section
701(b) of the Act, an injury determination is required for this investigation.
Therefore, we notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our initiation.
On June 13, 1983, the ITC determined that there is a reasonable indication that
imports of semifinished forged undercarriage links and rollers are materially
injuring or threatening to materially injure U.S. industries. The ITC also determined
that there is no reasonable indication that semifinished forged undercarriage
segments and finished forged undercarriage links, rollers and segments are
materially injuring or threatening to materially injure U.S. industries. Since
Industria Meccanica e Stampaggio S.p.A. (IMES) is the only known exporter to the
U.S. of semifinished forged undercarriage links and rollers, our investigation of the
petition's allegations regarding Italtractor ITM S.p.A. and Berco S.p.A., the
manufacturers, producers and exporters of semifinished forged undercarriage
segments and finished forged undercarriage links, rollers and segments, was
terminated.
We presented a questionnaire concerning the allegations in the petition to the
Embassy of Italy in Washington, D.C. on June 14, 1983, and requested a
response by July 14, 1983. In a letter dated July 11, 1983, the government of
Italy requested a postponement of the due date of the response; we granted the
Italian government a two-week extension. The government of Italy submitted a
response to our questionnaire on July 28, 1983. Additional information was
submitted on numerous dates.
On August 24, 1983, we preliminarily determined that the government of Italy
was providing manufacturers, producers, or exporters of semifinished forged
undercarriage components with certain benefits which constitute subsidies within
the meaning of the countervailing duty law (48 FR 39273). The estimated net
subsidy was 1.02 percent ad valorem and the following programs were preliminarily
determined to confer subsidies:
Rebates of indirect taxes.
Preferential financing.
On September 12-23, 1983, we verified in Italy the questionnaire responses
submitted by the government of Italy and IMES.
Our notice of preliminary determination gave interested parties an opportunity to
submit written and oral views. Following the preliminary determination, both
petitioners' and respondent's counsels filed briefs pertaining to this investigation.
We held a public hearing on September 27, 1983, at which counsel for the
petitioners, counsel for IMES, and representatives from the Italian Embassy
participated.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are semifinished forged undercarriage
links and rollers for crawler-mounted machinery (forged
undercarriage components). The merchandise is currently classified under item
numbers 664.08, 692.34 and 692.35 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States
Annotated (TSUSA).
Industria Meccanica e Stampaggio S.p.A. (IMES) of Sumirago (Varese), Italy is
the only known exporter of the forged undercarriage components which were
exported to the United States. The period for which we are measuring subsidization
is January 1, 1982 through April 30, 1983.
Analysis of Programs
In its response, the government of Italy provided data for the applicable period.
In addition, a response was provided by IMES through the government of Italy.
Based upon our analyses of the petition, the responses to our questionnaries, our
verification, and oral and written comments by interested parties, we determine the
following:
I. Programs Determined To Confer Subsidies
We have determined that subsidies are being provided under the programs listed
below to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Italy of forged
undercarriage components.
A. Rebates of Indirect Taxes. The stated purpose of Italian Law 639 is to rebate
customs duties and certain indirect taxes upon the export of products containing
certain raw materials. The law sets forth the value of the rebate for iron and steel in
lire per kilogram. Rebate values have remained unchanged since enactment of the
law in 1964. Granting of the rebate is automatic provided all the proper information
is supplied to and verified by the government of Italy.
Respondents did not provide the Department with information on the criteria for
establishing the rebate value and on the indirect taxes which were subject to rebate.
No evidence was presented by the respondents to demonstrate the requisite linkage
between the amount of the rebate and the incidence of customs duties and
*52113
certain indirect taxes on various inputs of forged undercarriage components.
Since the requisite linkage was not demonstrated and since this rebate is contingent
upon export performance, we determined that the rebate of indirect taxes provided
to IMES under Italian Law 639 conferes an export subsidy upon the manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Italy of forged undercarriage components.
We calculated the benefit received under this program by allocating the value of the
rebates earned between January 1, 1982 and April 30, 1983 over the value of IMES'
1982 and January-April 1983 exports of forged undercarriage
components. On this basis, we calculated a net subsidy in the amount of 1.37
percent ad valorem.
B. Pricing on Forging Quality Steel. The petitioners alleged that the government of
Italy, through two government-owned steel mills, provides forging quality steel
to IMES at prices which are preferential relative to other Italian purchasers. The
government of Italy did not respond to the DOC questions on the prices of steel
charged to IMES and to other Italian purchasers. In the absence of such a response,
we assume that steel mills owned by the government of Italy may sell forging
quality steel to IMES at rates lower than those charged to others.
Assuming that such price discrimination confers a subsidy, we find a
countervailable subsidy amount of zero on the facts of this case. Because the
government of Italy did not provide information on steel prices, we must use
the "best information available" to determine the benefit conferred upon IMES by
preferential pricing of steel by the government of Italy. Information on the
prices of steel was provided by IMES and by the petitioner. The steel price
information provided by the petitioner was for steel bar, a finished steel product.
IMES provided information on its purchases of forging quality steel from two
privately owned steel mills, two government-owned steel mills and a United
Kingdom steel mill. We verified these costs and used the steel prices from the two
privately owned mills provided by IMES as "best information available."
IMES purchased nearly twice as much steel from private suppliers in 1982 as is did
from publicly owned suppliers. The weighted average price of steel purchased from
private suppliers was lower than the weighted average price of steel purchased from
publicly owned suppliers. Thus, the countervailable subsidy amount IMES received
from preferential prices on steel purchased from government-owned steel suppliers
was zero percent ad valorem.
II. Programs Determined Not To Confer Subsidies
We have determined that subsidies are not being provided to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Italy of forged undercarriage components under the
programs described below.
A. Preferential Financing. In the preliminary determination, we found that the
financing provided to IMES under Italian Law 263 conferred a domestic subsidy
because we believed that these loans were limited to companies located in the
Mezzagiorno or in "designated depressed areas" and that the terms of these loans
were inconsistent with commercial considerations. During verification, we found
that this program was generally available to all small and medium-sized companies
in Italy. Italian Law 623 has not been in force since 1976.
In October 1974, IMES obtained two eight-year loans from Mediocredito Regionale
Lombardo at the prevailing commercial rate of interest. Mediocredito Regionale
Lombardo is a regional medium-term credit institution founded and subject to
government control under Law 445. Under Law 445, financing is available at
commercial rates to small and medium-sized businesses for equipment or capital
from regional medium-term credit institutions. Mediocredito Regionale Lombardo
is owned by public and private shareholders with no direct ownership by the
government of Italy.
In February 1976, IMES received a reduction in the rate of interest under Law 623
on one of the loans obtained from Mediocredito Regionale Lombardo. The other
1974 loan IMES obtained from Mediocredito Regionale Lombardo did not receive a
reduction in the rate of interest. We verified that IMES is not located in the
Mezzagiorno or in a "designated depressed area" and that IMES received the interest
rate reduction which was available to all small and medium-sized businesses. Both
loans were repaid in 1982.
Because the interest rate reduction received by IMES under Law 623 is not limited
to a specific industry, group of industries, or to companies in specific regions, we
have determined that the rate reduction IMES received under Law 623 does not
confer a countervailable subsidy upon the manufacturers, producers, or exporters
in Italy of forged undercarriage components.
B. Convertible Debt. IMES issued convertible debt in 1977. This debt was
converted to capital stock in November, 1982. We verified that the conversion was
consistent with commercial considerations. Therefore, we have determined that the
conversion of IMES's debt to capital stock did not confer a countervailable benefit.
III. Programs Determined Not To Be Used
We have determined that the programs listed below which were listed in our notice
of initiation are not being used by the manufacturers, producers, or exporters in
Italy of forged undercarriage components.
A. Government Equity Infusions Inconsistent With Commercial Consideration. We
verified that IMES is a 100 percent privately owned, family operated company
which has not received any government equity infusions.
B. Regional Development Incentives. The petition alleges that IMES receives
development benefits provided by the government of Italy under the following
laws or programs: Law 908 which provides subsidized loans at below market rates
and on preferential terms to qualifying industrial projects in northern and central
Italy; Law 614 which provides tax incentives, including a ten-year total
exemption from local taxes, to certain industrial enterprises establishing or
expanding in areas of northern and central Italy; and Law 902 which assists
small and medium-sized businesses in northern and central Italy
with selective investments, particularly for modernizing existing plants to save
labor costs.
We verified that IMES has neither received any benefits from, nor participated in,
any of these regional development programs.
IV. Program No Longer Used
We have determined that program listed below which was included in our notice of
initiation is no longer used by the manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Italy
of forged undercarriage components.
A. Export Credit Financing. In the preliminary determination, we stated that we
would seek more complete information on the terms and conditions of the export
credit financing received by IMES' American customer under Italian Law 227.
Part IV of Italian Law 227 establishes medium-term credit financing to promote the
exportation of gods and services. The Istituto Centrale per il Credito and Medio
Termine (Mediocredito Centrale) administers the export credit financing through
"special medium and long-term credit institutions." The Minister of the
*52114
Treasury, after consulting the Interministerial Committee for Credit and Savings,
establishes the requirements, terms and conditions of the export credit financing.
The financing is denominated in Italian lire or any foreign
currency acceptable to the Mediocredito Centrale and the special medium and
long-term credit institutions.
During the period under investigation, certain shipments of forged undercarriage
components were financed through a program of export credits administered by
and officially supported by the government of Italy. Under this program, an
export facility was made available in 1981 between one of the "special medium and
long-term credit institutions" and a French commercial bank. This facility provided
an "umbrella" line of credit to the French bank at a rate consistent with the terms of
the OECD arrangement on export credits. The French bank could then re-lend the
funds provided under the umbrella at a rate above the OECD rate. These loans by the
French bank were buyers' credits tied to exports from Italy, and were subject to
approval by the Italian authorities. This particular umbrella facility expired in April
1983, after which time the French bank could not make new loans under the facility.
In October, 1982, the U.S. customer entered into an agreement with the French
bank, opening a line of credit for the purchase of forged undercarriage components
from IMES. Shipments financed under this line of credit are identifiable by invoice,
and all invoices against which this line was used were issued by IMES from October
7 to November 9, 1982. All shipments financed under this program were entered for
consumption before the suspension of liquidation. After that time, but prior to the
initiation of this
investigation, the U.S. customer informed the French bank that there would be no
further purchases using this line of credit and, therefore, the French bank was
released from its commitment for the remainder of the line. Accordingly, the French
bank terminated the agreement with respect to the unused portion of the line of
credit, and no further purchases by the U.S. customer from IMES were financed
through this program.
Because this line of credit is no longer available to support sales by IMES to the U.S.
customer and no shipments of the forged undercarriage components subject to the
suspension of liquidation were financed under this program, we conclude that loans
under this program are no longer available in support of IMES and that subsidies, if
any, which may have been conferred on prior entries are beyond the reach of this
proceeding. However, because of the possibility that a new facility may be opened,
and official lending in support of exports by IMES could be resumed, we intend to
reexamine these oficial export credits in the course of the annual review conducted
pursuant to section 751 of the Act should a countervailing duty order be
issued in this proceeding.
Petitioner's Comments
Comment 1
In calculating the amount of the benefit conferred by the rebate of indirect taxes,
Commerce should use either the statutory lire per kilogram value of the rebate as it
has done in the past or, in the alternative, the amount of such rebate earned by
IMES during the review period.
DOC Position
We verified that although the statutory lire per kilogram rebate value was 30 lire per
kilogram, the rebate value fluctuated based upon yearly appropriations for the
program by the Italian Goverment. Therefore, we calculated the amount of benefit
conferred upon IMES by Law 639 on an ad valorem basis.
We agree that the calculations to determine the benefits conferred on IMES by Law
639 should be based on the amount of such rebate earned by IMES during the
review period. Accordingly, we recalculated the benefit conferred by the rebate of
indirect taxes on the basis of the amount of the rebate earned by IMES during the
review period.
Comment 2
Commerce must determine whether IMES benefits from preferential prices and
terms from its steel suppliers vis-a-vis their other customers.
DOC Position
We requested information from the government of Italy on its steel prices to
customers other than IMES. This information was not provided; therefore, we
determined that the government of Italy provided steel to IMES at preferential
prices relative to their other customers. See the section of this notice titled
"Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies".
Comment 3
In its preliminary determination, Commerce did not address the petitioners' central
allegation of preferential steel pricing. Commerce mistakenly applied its upstream
subsidization methodology.
DOC Position
Since the Government of Italy (GOI) did not respond to our questions on the
prices of steel charged to IMES and to other Italian purchasers, we must assume that
the government is selling to IMES at preferential rates. However, as described in
section I.B, using "best information available" (information
provided by IMES), we determined that there was no countervailable subsidy
amount.
Comment 4
At the inducement of the GOI, privately owned steel mills also sell to IMES at
preferential prices. This inducement is as much a subsidy as implementing the
policy through government-owned steel mills.
The Act equally enjoins IMES's privately owned steel suppliers, as well as
government owned steel suppliers, from subsidizing IMES's manufacture and
exportation of forged undercarriage components.
DOC Position
We found no evidence of preferential pricing.
Comment 5
Because the GOI refused to supply data requested in the questionnaire, Commerce
must use the European community official prices (Davignon prices) or the
information on steel prices provided by the petitioners as "best
information otherwise available".
DOC Position
Italian steel is generally sold at discounts from the Davignon prices.
The information on steel prices provided by the petitioners is for hot-rolled steel
bar, a finished steel product. We verified that the steel product that IMES uses to
manufacture forged undercarriage components is steel billet, a semifinished steel
product. We also verified the prices that IMES paid for steel billet. Because
hot-rolled steel bar and steel billet are two distinct steel products, the finished
product generally costlier than the semifinished product, we used the "best
information available in making our final determination, pursuant to section 776(a)
of the Act. The best information available is the verified information furnished by
IMES rather than the information provided by the petitioners.
*52115
Comment 6
Failure by Commerce to countervail preferential steel prices and terms received by
IMES would lead to wholesale circumvention of the U.S.-E.C. steel agreement.
Italian steel mills can easily circumvent the Agreement by selling
steel at preferential prices and terms to IMES (and other steel fabricators) who
would then forge the steel into products for subsequent sale in the U.S. at low prices.
The Italian steel industry, therefore, would be exporting, through IMES, its
overcapacity and high unemployment to the United States.
DOC Position
As noted in our response to petitioner's comment 5 above, we verified that the steel
that IMES uses to manufacture forged undercarriage components is steel billet, a
semifinished steel product. Steel billet is not a licensed product under the United
States-European Community steel arrangement. Sales in the U.S. of forged
undercarriage components manufactured from a steel product not licensed under
by the U.S.-E.C. steel agreement would not circumvent that Arrangement.
Comment 7
Commerce should find that the preferential export credit financing provided to
IMES's American customer confers a countervailable benefit. If the exportation of
products benefits from preferential financing, then the products are being
subsidized. It is irrelevant whether the product is being subsidized directly
or indirectly.
DOC Position
We determined that the export credit financing provided to IMES American
customer is no longer being used. See the section of this notice titled "Program No
Longer Used."
Comment 8
The countervailing duty law does not exempt from its provisions preferential
export credit financing that complies with the requirements of the OECD
Arrangement.
DOC Position
See DOC position on Petitioners' Comment 7 above. We did not reach this issue
because we found that the financing concerned is no longer being used.
Comment 9
Commerce should calculate the ad valorem amount of the subsidy conferred by
IMES's preferential export credit financing by using as its commercial benchmark a
comparable dollar-denominated loan that IMES could have secured in the Italian
commercial market, without regard to the credit experience of IMES's American
customer or the availability of dollar financing outside of Italy.
DOC Position
See the section of this notice titled "Program No Longer Used."
Respondent's Comments
Comment 1
The rebates of indirect taxes that IMES receives under Law 639 should not be found
countervailable.
DOC Position
We have determined that the rebates of indirect taxes IMES receives under Law
639 are an export subsidy conferred upon IMES by the government of Italy. See
the section of this notice "Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies" for an
explanation of the DOC position.
Comment 2
If the DOC continues to treat the Law 639 program as countervailable in the final
determination, the DOC should continue to use the amount of rebate actually
received to calculate the benefit to IMES. The amount received during the period of
investigation, rather than the amount theoretically earned, more accurately reflects
the real value of the program to IMES. Further, any benefit calculation should be on
an ad valorem basis.
DOC Comment
We calculated the ad valorem subsidy conferred upon IMES by Law 639 using the
amount of rebate earned by IMES during the period of investigation, rather than the
amount received by IMES. We verified that the earned, but unreceived, rebates are
reported on IMES financial statements as assets, enabling IMES to use the rebates as
collateral for borrowing purposes. Thus, IMES is able to use or draw against earned
but unreceived rebates. In addition, the delay in
receipt of the rebate is due to administrative delay rather than government
mandate.
Comment 3
IMES received no countervailable benefits from its steel purchases. IMES has never
received any discounts contingent on export performance from any steel mill,
whether government or private, domestic or foreign.
DOC Position
We found no evidence that IMES received any discounts based upon export
performance. IMES does have some domestic sales and we verified that the steel
prices charged IMES do not vary depending on the final destination of the products.
See DOC response to Petitioners' Comment 2 above.
Comment 4
"Petitioners' allegation with regard to preferential steel prices was limited only to
government-owned steel mills in their petition. On the last day of verification, they
attempted to insert a new and unsubstantiated 'private
subsidy' theory into this case. . . . There is absolutely no evidence in the record to
indicate that the pricing practices of the private mills are dictated or controlled by
the government. Under the countervailing duty statutes and ITA precedent,
so-called 'private subsidies' are not countervailable unless required by a
government. Therefore, petitioners' untimely and unsubstantiated allegation must
be rejected."
DOC Position
The petitioners first raised their allegation of private subsidization in a letter prior
to verification. We do not consider the allegation to have been "untimely."
Comment 5
The alleged "circumvention" of the U.S.-E.C. steel agreement by exportation to the
U.S. of forged undercarriage components manufactured by IMES is a non- issue. The
U.S.-E.C. Arrangement covered Italian hot-rolled sheet and strip and cold-rolled
sheet and strip; the type of steel used by IMES to make forged undercarriage
components (steel billet) is not covered by the Arrangement. Since the type of steel
used by IMES was not at issue in the Italian steel
cases, it is difficult to see why Italian steel producers would be "motivated" to
circumvent the agreement that settled those cases.
DOC Position
We verified that the type of steel IMES uses to manufacture forged undercarriage
components is steel billet which is not a product licensed under the U.S.-E.C. steel
arrangement. Therefore, this investigation does not involve the circumvention of
the U.S.-E.C. steel arrangement.
Comment 6
The pricing practices of the private steel mills would not be countervailable
*52116
even if preferential prices were provided. Any private domestic subsidy or export
subsidy must be required by a government to be countervailable. There is no
evidence in the record to indicate that the prices charged by the private steel
companies are required, controlled, directed or influenced by the Italian
government.
DOC Position
We found no evidence in the record or during verification, to indicate that the prices
charged by the private steel companies are required, controlled, directed or
influenced by the government of Italy.
Comment 7
IMES vigorously disputes the preliminary determination that the interest rate
reduction it received under Law 623 is countervailable. The Law 623 interest rate
reduction was generally available and, therefore, is not countervailable.
DOC Position
We verified that the interest rate reduction IMES received under Law 623 was
generally available to all small and medium-sized companies. Accordingly, we
determined that Law 623 did not confer a countervailable benefit on IMES.
Comment 8
The export credit financing recieved by IMES' American customer under Italian Law
227 is not countervailable because IMES was not the recipient of the loan. The
financing arrangement benefitted the American customer, not IMES.
DOC Position
We did not reach this issue since we found that the financing concerned is no longer
being used. See the section of the notice titled "Program No Longer Used."
Comment 9
Financing arrangements permitted by the OECD Arrangement are not
countervailable. The U.S. participates in both the OECD Arrangement and GATT,
which provide for the granting of export financing by its participants subject to
certain restraints. The financing arrangement at issue in the present case was in
conformity with the provisions of the OECD Arrangement, which thus brings the
export credit practice outside the statutory definition of subsidy.
DOC Position
See our position on Comment 8 above.
Comment 10
If the DOC finds the export credit financing provided to IMES' American customer to
be countervailable in spite of its accordance with the OECD Arrangement, the
applicable benchmark should not be IMES' borrowing rate. The loan was granted to
IMES' American customer, not IMES. Therefore, the more appropriate benchmark
would be the U.S. prime rate or the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR).
DOC Position
See our position on Comment 8 above.
Final Determination
Based on our investigation and in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we
reached a final determination that manufacturers, producers, or exporters in
Italy of semifinished forged undercarriage components are being provided
certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of the
countervailing duty law.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
We are directing U.S. Customs to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of
semifinished forged undercarriage components from Italy subject to this
investigation which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption,
on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Customs
Service shall continue to require a cash deposit, the posting of a bond or other
security equal to 1.37 ad valorem for each entry of the subject merchandise. The
bond or cash deposit requirements established in our preliminary determinations of
August 30, 1983, are no longer in effect.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and confidential
information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such
information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without
the written consent of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. If
the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist,
this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted as a result of the
suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled. If the ITC determines that
such injury does exist, we
will issue a countervailing duty order directing Customs officials to assess a
countervailing duty on semifinished forged undercarriage components from
Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after the
suspension of liquidation equal to 1.37 percent ad valorem. This determination is
published pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act.
William T. Archey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration.
November 7, 1983.
[FR Doc. 83-30878 Filed 11-15-83; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M