------------------------------------------------------------
[C-557-806] 

Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative 
review.

SUMMARY: On September 8, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on extruded rubber thread 
from Malaysia. We have now completed this review and determine 
the bounty or grant during the period January 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992 to be 3.30 percent ad valorem for all companies. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorenza Olivas or Chris Jimenez, 
Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-2786. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


Background 

   On September 8, 1994, the Department published in the Federal 

---- page 17516 ----

Register (59 FR 46392) the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on extruded rubber thread 
from Malaysia (57 FR 38472; August 25, 1992). The Department 
has now completed this review in accordance with section 751 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 
   We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
results. We received written comments from the Government of 
Malaysia (GOM), respondent, and North American Rubber Thread, 
petitioner. 
   The period of review is January 1, 1992 through December 
31, 1992 and affects entries made on or after March 31, 1992 
and before April 28, 1992, and all entries made on or after 
August 25, 1992 through December 31, 1992. For an explanation 
of entries covered, see the ``Final Results of Review'' section 
of this notice. 
   This review involves four companies: Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil), 
Filmax Sdn. Bhd. (Filmax), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. (Rubberflex), 
and Filati Lastex Elastofibre Sdn. Bhd. (Filati). The review 
covers the following programs: 
   (1) Pioneer Status.
   (2) Export Credit Refinancing (ECR).
   (3) Abatement of Income Tax Based on the Ratio of Export 
Sales to Total Sales.
   (4) Abatement of Five Percent of the Value of Indigenous 
Malaysian Materials Used in Exports.
   (5) Industrial Building Allowance.
   (6) Double Deduction for Export Promotion Expenses.
   (7) Rubber Discount Scheme.
   (8) Investment Tax Allowance.
   (9) Abatement of Five Percent of Taxable Income Due to Location 
in a Promoted Industrial Area.
   (10) Allowance of a Percentage of Net Taxable Income Based 
on the F.O.B. Value of Export Sales.
   (11) Double Deduction of Export Credit Insurance Payments.
   (12) Abatement of Taxable Income of Five Percent of Adjusted 
Income of Companies Due to Capital Participation and Employment 
Policy Adherence.
   (13) Preferential Financing for Bumiputras.
   After consideration of the GOM's comments on the preliminary 
results of review, the Department has recalculated the cash 
deposit to account for the elimination of the Abatement of Five 
Percent of the Value of Indigenous Malaysian Materials Used 
in Exports Program. In addition, the Department recalculated 
the post-shipment financing benefits to account for its inadvertent 
omission of certain transactions. Accordingly, the Department 
determines the total bounty or grant from all programs under 
review to be 3.30 percent ad valorem for all companies. 

Scope of Review 

   Imports covered by this review are shipments of extruded 
rubber thread from Malaysia. Extruded rubber thread is defined 
as vulcanized rubber thread obtained by extrusion of stable 
or concentrated natural rubber latex of any cross sectional 
shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140 gauge, 
to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. During 
the review period, such merchandise was classifiable under item 
number 4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The 
HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes. 
The written description remains dispositive. 

Calculation of Country-Wide Rate 

   We calculated the bounty or grant on a country-wide basis 
by first calculating the bounty or grant for each company subject 
to the administrative review. We then weight-averaged the bounty 
or grant received by each company using as the weight its share 
of total Malaysian extruded rubber thread exports to the United 
States, including all companies, even those with de minimis 
or zero bounties or grants. We then summed the individual companies' 
weight-averaged bounties or grants to determine the bounty or 
grant from all programs benefitting extruded rubber thread exports 
to the United States. Since the country-wide rate calculated 
using this methodology was above de minimis, as defined by 19 
CFR 355.7 (1994), we proceeded to the next step and examined 
the total bounty or grant calculated for each company to determine 
whether individual company bounty or grant differed significantly 
from the weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 
CFR 355.22(d)(3). In calculating the individual company rates 
described above, only one rate was calculated for Heveafil and 
Filmax because Heveafil and Filmax were related parties. 
   None of the companies received aggregate bounties or grants 
which were significantly different within the meaning of 19 
CFR 355.22(d)(3)(i). Therefore, the country-wide rate is based 
on the weighted-average aggregate bounties or grants received 
by the companies subject to this review. 

Analysis of Comments 

   Comment 1: The GOM alleges that the Department initiated 
the original investigation pursuant to Section 303(a)(2) of 
the Act, and, therefore, the Department can impose countervailing 
duties under this section only if there is an injury determination 
by the International Trade Commission (ITC). (The ITC discontinued 
its injury determination under Section 303(a)(2) because the 
duty-free status of rubber thread from Malaysia was terminated.) 
The GOM contends that without an injury determination, the Department 
had no authority to issue a countervailing duty order and to 
require the bonds or cash deposits. The GOM further maintains 
that the Department cannot simply transfer the jurisdiction 
for an investigation from Section 303(a)(2) to Section 303(a)(1) 
without issuing a public notice that it intends to proceed with 
the investigation under a different statutory provision. See, 
Certain Textile Mill Products and Apparel from Turkey (50 FR 
9817; March 12, 1987); Certain Textile Mill Products and Apparel 
from the Philippines (50 FR 1195; March 26, 1985) and Certain 
Textile Mill Products and Apparel from Indonesia (50 FR 9861; 
March 12, 1985). Furthermore, because there was no initiation 
notice or a preliminary determination under section 303(a)(1), 
a final determination under that section was not appropriate. 
If Commerce wanted to proceed with the investigation, it was 
required to re-initiate under the appropriate provision. 
   Petitioner argues that the Department has previously rejected 
the GOM's claims and, therefore, they merit no more consideration. 
   Department's Position: The GOM's challenge to the Department's 
authority to issue the order is untimely. Challenges to the 
issuance of an order must be filed within 30 days of the date 
the order is published. The countervailing duty order on extruded 
rubber thread from Malaysia was published on August 25, 1992. 
The GOM voluntarily withdrew a timely-filed complaint challenging 
the order on these same grounds. The GOM's attempt to reverse 
that challenge in this proceeding is untimely. 
   Comment 2: The GOM contends that the Department overstated 
the benefit received under the ECR program in its administrative 
review. The GOM argues that the Department must use the ``cost 
of funds'' to the government as the benchmark as required by 
item ``k'' of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies annexed 
to the Subsidies Code, and the appropriate ``cost of funds'' 
is the 90-day rate for government bonds. The GOM asserts that 
if the Department instead uses the cost to the recipient as 
a benchmark, it should continue its past practice and use the 
bankers' 

---- page 17517 ----

acceptances (BA) rates because they are identical to ECR financing 
in terms of risk, maturity and purpose. The GOM further contends 
that the Department should interpret the ``predominant'' form 
of financing as the most comparable form of financing. It asserts 
that it makes no sense to compare trade financing to other financing 
such as short-term loans and overdrafts. Furthermore, if the 
Department uses the weighted-average of commercial rates, it 
should account for the differences in the terms of financing. 
   Petitioner argues that it is the Department's practice to 
use the national average short-term borrowing rate. It further 
argues that companies cannot borrow at the government borrowing 
rate; therefore, ``cost of funds'' to the government is an improper 
benchmark. 
   Department's Position: We disagree with the GOM. The Illustrative 
List identifies common forms of export subsidies but does not 
necessarily instruct the Department how to value them. The Department 
has a longstanding practice of valuing the benefit to the recipient 
rather than the cost to the government for the purpose of calculating 
countervailing duty rates. 
   The Department's practice is to use the rate for the predominant 
form of short-term financing in the country under review as 
the benchmark for short-term loans. See, Countervailing Duties; 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments 
(59 FR 23380; May 31, 1989) (Proposed Rules). Where there is 
no single predominant source of short-term financing in the 
country in question, the Department may use a benchmark composed 
of the interest rates for two or more sources of short-term 
financing in the country in question. See, Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: 
Steel Wire Rope from Thailand (56 FR 46299; September 11, 1991). 
BAs constitute an extremely small percentage of short-term financing 
in Malaysia and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to use 
the BA rates as a benchmark. 
   At verification, the GOM provided the Bank Negara Malaysia 
Quarterly Bulletin, which lists the commercial bank base lending 
(BLR) rates prevailing during the review period. The rates ranged 
from 9.97 percent to 10.29 percent. According to commercial 
bank officials, the banks add a 1.00 to 2.00 percent spread 
to the BLR. 
   Therefore, we have determined that it is appropriate to continue 
to use the average of the commercial BLR rates published in 
Bank Negara Malaysia Quarterly Bulletin, plus an average 1.5 
percent spread, as a benchmark, in accordance with section 355.44(b)(3)(i) 
of the Department's Proposed Rules. 
   Comment 3: The GOM argues that both Heveafil and Filmax specifically 
excluded U.S. exports from the calculation of eligibility for 
the pre-shipment export financing. In addition, the GOM claims 
that the two companies did not use funds from exports to the 
United States to repay any of the pre-shipment loans. The GOM 
claims that in a similar situation, the Department concluded 
that exports to the United States did not receive benefits from 
short-term financing. See, Suspension of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation; Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts from Brazil 
(52 FR 28177, 28179; July 28, 1987) (Brazilian Crankshafts Suspension 
Agreement). Therefore, the GOM maintains that the companies 
received no benefit with regard to U.S. shipments. 
   Petitioner argues that the exclusion of U.S. exports from 
the eligibility calculation did not affect benefits received 
and, therefore, the Department should dismiss the GOM's claim. 
   Department's Position: The GOM provides ECR financing based 
on export performance. The explicit purpose of this program 
is to promote the export of manufactured and approved agricultural 
products. Two types of ECR financing are available: pre-shipment 
and post-shipment financing. There is no evidence that the GOM 
limits these ECR loans to increase exports to markets other 
than the United States, nor is there any evidence of a provision 
that prevents exporters from receiving ECR loans for exports 
to the United States. In fact, at verification we found that 
Heveafil received an ECR post-shipment loan for a U.S. export 
during the review period. 
   During the review period, both Heveafil and Filmax applied 
for and used pre-shipment financing based on certificates of 
performance (CP). Pre-shipment financing based on CPs is a line 
of credit based on previous exports and cannot be tied to specific 
sales in specific markets. Because pre-shipment loans were not 
shipment specific, we included all loans in calculating the 
country-wide duty rate. By excluding exports to the United States 
from their application for export financing, the companies merely 
reduced the amount of financing they received. In addition, 
at verification, company officials at the Heveafil and Filmax 
rubber factories could not tie the rubber latex purchased with 
the pre-shipment loans to products exported to destinations 
other than the United States. The GOM incorrectly claims that, 
in a similar situation in the Brazilian Crankshafts Suspension 
Agreement, the Department concluded that no subsidy from the 
CACEX short-term financing was provided on exports to the United 
States because exporters agreed not to use that portion of any 
outstanding CACEX pre-shipment loans certificates which were 
based on merchandise exported to the United States. In fact, 
in the final determination of Brazilian Crankshafts, the Department 
found the CACEX export financing program to be countervailable. 
See, Final Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Forged 
Steel Crankshafts From Brazil (52 FR 28254, 28255; October 15, 
1987). Therefore, we affirm that pre-shipment financing benefits 
all exports, including those to the United States. 
   Comment 4: The GOM argues that in calculating the benefit 
from the post-shipment program the Department used the incorrect 
interest rates for certain transactions made by Filmax and Rubberflex. 
Since interest paid for such financing was broken out by interest 
rates charged by specific banks, the Department should recalculate 
the benefit using the applicable rates. 
   Department's Position: We agree and have made the adjustments 
accordingly. In addition, we are including certain transactions 
made by Rubberflex that we inadvertently omitted in our calculation 
of post-shipment financing benefits. These changes increase 
the benefit from this program from 0.0003 percent ad valorem 
to 0.11 percent ad valorem. 
   Comment 5: The GOM argues that in calculating the export 
abatement benefit the Department should consider the actual 
tax savings in a particular year. Therefore, the Department 
should consider the non-countervailable deductions. If those 
non-countervailable deductions equal the tax liability, then 
there is no benefit in the year in question. 
   Petitioner argues that the GOM's claim ignores the fact that 
the subsidy's existence permits tax benefits to be carried forward 
to other years. Hence, the Malaysians do benefit from the export 
abatement subsidy. Further, petitioner believes that it is reasonable 
to assume that the Malaysians will take advantage of subsidy 
tax deductions. 
   Department's Position: Essentially the GOM has asked us to 
assume that the non-countervailable allowances are used first, 
even if the non-countervailable allowances can be carried forward, 
while the export allowance cannot be carried forward. As we 
stated in the final determination in the investigation, given 
this distinction, it is more reasonable to assume that the 

---- page 17518 ----

export abatement is used first. See, Malaysian Final Determination. 
Therefore, we continue to treat the export abatement as fully 
countervailable based on the tax return filed in the year under 
review. 
   Comment 6: The GOM argues that since Heveafil and Filmax 
eliminated U.S. exports from their application for the tax deduction 
under the export abatement program, the Department cannot attribute 
any of the tax abatement program to such exports. Citing section 
355.47(a) of the Proposed Rules, the GOM argues that the Department 
cannot find a program countervailable unless its benefits are 
tied to the subject merchandise. 
   Petitioner argues that the GOM's method of exclusion was 
illusory, as it did not affect the benefits received. 
   Department's Position: In calculating the ratio of total 
exports to total sales, Heveafil, the only company that claimed 
the abatement on its income tax return filed in the review period, 
deducted the amount of U.S. exports from both the numerator 
and denominator. In essence, the companies merely prorated the 
benefit (i.e. adjusted downward using the ratio of U.S. exports 
to total exports), since its calculation did not significantly 
change the ratio applied to adjusted income to determine its 
export abatement. The calculation methodology used by Heveafil 
in its tax return did not eliminate the benefit attributable 
to sales of U.S. exports. Therefore, we confirm our preliminary 
determination that this program provides a countervailable benefit 
with respect to exports of the subject merchandise. 
   Comment 7: The GOM argues that the Department assumed that 
the entire deduction for all other export tax programs resulted 
in cash savings in the year under investigation. Moreover, these 
programs are unlike the export abatement in that they can be 
carried forward. 
   Department's Position: The companies under review earned 
several types of allowances which may be used to offset taxable 
income. Each year, the company calculates the total value of 
allowances to which it is entitled. It then draws from this 
total the amount needed to eliminate any tax liability in that 
year. If anything remains in the pool, it can be carried forward 
to offset taxable income in future years. 
   The specific allowances drawn from the pool in any given 
year are not identified on the tax form. Therefore, it was necessary 
to develop a methodology for estimating the portion of the allowance 
used in a given year that is attributable to countervailable 
programs, and the portion that is attributable to non-countervailable 
programs in order to calculate the net bounty or grant. 
   As we did in the investigation, we assumed during this review 
that the countervailable programs would be used first. Our rationale 
was to consider that a central purpose of the countervailing 
duty law is to encourage foreign governments not to provide 
countervailable subsidies. In this review, this purpose can 
best be served by selecting the remaining countervailable allowances 
before selecting any of the non-countervailable allowances available 
to the companies. 
   In addition, if we treat a portion of the countervailable 
allowances as having been used, other portions carried forward 
for future use would also be countervailable when used. This 
means that we would have to track allowances carried forward 
and trace from year to year what portion of the allowances carried 
forward is countervailable. To avoid an unadministerable system 
of tracking and tracing, we have treated the countervailable 
portions as having been used in the year under review. 
   Comment 8: The GOM argues that the Department previously 
found the Pioneer Status Program not countervailable. See Carbon 
Steel Wire Rod from Malaysia; Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review (Wire Rod from Malaysia) (56 FR 14927; 
April 12, 1991). The GOM asserts that it is not countervailable 
because tax benefits under this program are not limited to any 
sector or region of the Malaysian economy, nor is the program 
exclusively available to exporting companies. The GOM contends 
that the Department confirmed at verification, both the de jure 
and de facto availability of this program to the entire Malaysian 
economy, and that pioneer status tax benefits are not targeted 
to specific industries or companies in a discriminatory manner. 
Furthermore, the Department verified that the internal guidelines 
used to grant pioneer status are characterized by neutral criteria 
unrelated to exports, location or any other factors that could 
require a determination that the program is countervailable. 
   The GOM further argues that the Department verified that 
the GOM does not require export commitments, or view them as 
preponderant, in evaluating applications; that export potential 
is merely one of 12 factors considered in granting status; and 
that a product will not be accepted based on export potential 
alone. Furthermore, the GOM argues that the Department verified 
that the Malaysian Government commonly approves companies who 
do not make export commitments as well as some who do make them. 
Therefore, market destination is irrelevant to granting pioneer 
status. 
   Department's Position: In Wire Rod from Malaysia, we concluded 
that no industry or group of industries used the program disproportionately 
and found the program not to be countervailable. That determination, 
however, did not specifically address situations where companies 
had a specific export condition attached to their pioneer status 
approval. In the Wire Rod investigation, petitioner raised the 
issue of an export requirement. Although the requirement per 
se is not new, it was not at issue with the companies investigated 
at the time. 
   As stated in the Malaysian Final Determination, we continue 
to view the ``domestic'' side of the Pioneer Status Program 
to be not countervailable. However, in this instance recipients 
of the tax benefits conferred by this program can be divided 
into two categories: industries and activities that will find 
market opportunities in Malaysia and elsewhere, and those that 
face a saturated domestic market. At verification, we established 
that an export requirement may sometimes be applied to certain 
industries after it is determined that the domestic market will 
no longer support additional producers. The extruded rubber 
thread industry is among these industries. 
   The combination of the necessary export orientation of the 
industry due to lack of domestic market opportunities and the 
explicit export condition attached to pioneer status approval 
in the rubber thread industry lead us to conclude that the ``export'' 
side of the Pioneer Status Program constitutes an export subsidy 
to the rubber thread industry. Whether or not the commitment 
was voluntary, as the GOM suggests, the company has obligated 
itself to export a very large portion of its production, and 
that commitment appears to have been an important condition 
for approval of benefits. For further information, see Malaysian 
Final Determination.
   Comment 9: The GOM argues that the Department overstated 
the benefit from the Pioneer Status Program because it fails 
to deduct normal capital allowances that would have been allowed 
if the program had not been used. The GOM claims that Rubberflex 
and Filmax, in fact, received no cash benefits from this program. 
Furthermore, the Department incorrectly allocated pioneer status 
tax benefits over only export sales even though pioneer status 
tax benefits are also applicable to profits on domestic 

---- page 17519 ----

sales. According to the GOM, this is consistent with the Department's 
practice to allocate benefits over total sales to which they 
are ``tied.'' 
   Petitioner argues that pioneer status tax benefits are for 
the exports of the subject product. Thus, they are countervailable 
and properly allocated only over export sales. 
   Department's Position: We have not overstated the benefit 
from the Pioneer Status Program. When a company receives pioneer 
status, it is allowed to stockpile normal capital allowances 
for use in future years. Therefore, these allowances should 
not be used to offset current benefits. Moreover, export sales 
should form the denominator because receipt of pioneer status 
tax benefits for the companies under review is contingent upon 
exportation. See section 355.47(a)(2) of the Proposed Rules.
   Comment 10: The GOM argues that the Rubber Discount Program 
ended on December 31, 1991 and that exports on or after January 
1, 1992 were no longer eligible for rubber discount benefits. 
The GOM further argues that in the original investigation, the 
Department determined that the benefit from this program occurs 
at the time of export (not at the time of receipt of the cash). 
   Therefore, exports after December 31, 1991 did not receive 
benefits. 
   Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the benefit from 
the program occurs at the time of receipt of the funds, as only 
then does the company have the money to use. 
   Department's Position: We agree with respondent. In the preliminary 
results, the Department determined that the benefits were conferred 
at the time of export. Since the program was terminated effective 
January 1, 1992, and the last date exports were eligible for 
rebates was December 30, 1991, no benefits were received from 
this program during the review period. Our position remains 
unchanged from our preliminary results. 
   Comment 11: The GOM contends that we should adjust the cash 
deposit to reflect program-wide changes affecting future benefits: 
the reduction in the abatement of income for exports, the elimination 
of the development tax and the reduction of the corporate tax. 
   Petitioner argues that cash deposit should not differ from 
the subsidy found in the review period, because the actual benefit 
is not known until after the full investigation of the level 
of subsidization. 
   Department's Position: According to 19 CFR 355.50(a), the 
cash deposit rate will be adjusted for program-wide changes 
(1) which occur after the review period, but before the preliminary 
results are published, and (2) which can be measured. The benefits 
of certain types of programs are not always measurable. For 
example, in cases of certain loan programs, there may be many 
factors affecting the subsidy rate, not all of which can be 
quantified in advance. See, e.g., Certain Textile Mill Products 
from Thailand, 52 FR 7636 (1987); and Textile Mill Products 
from Mexico, 50 FR 10824 (1985); see, also, Live Swine From 
Canada, 53 FR 22189 (1988). 
   In the instant review, the reduction of the corporate tax 
and the elimination of the development tax are not program-wide 
changes, but changes in one factor of the benefit calculation. 
In Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts thereof from Singapore Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 26384, 26386; June 7, 1991), 
regarding the reduction of the corporate tax rate, we stated 
that ``there are a number of factors other than the corporate 
tax rate which affect the benefit calculations (i.e., total 
sales, total exports, adjusted profits, and investment allowances). 
Since changes in these factors can offset one another, a * * 
* reduction in the tax rate does not warrant a reduction in 
the cash deposit rate.'' While the reduction in the corporate 
tax rate and the elimination of the development tax may change 
the level of benefits found for a tax program, these changes 
in the tax rates do not constitute a program-wide change in 
a subsidy program under section 355.50 of the Proposed Rules. 
   The GOM also changed the abatement of income from exports 
programs by reducing the abatement rates. While the reduction 
in the abatement rates meets the definition of a ``program-wide 
change'' under section 355.50(b) of the Proposed Rules, that 
change cannot be measured. Companies earn several types of general 
tax allowances which are not under review and which may be used 
to offset taxable income. Each year, the companies calculate 
the total value of allowances to which they are entitled. They 
draw from the total allowances the amount needed to eliminate 
any tax liability in that year. If anything remains in the pool, 
it can be carried forward to offset taxable income in future 
years. See, Department's Position to Comment 7. It is not known 
what deductions companies have taken until the tax returns are 
filed, and it is inappropriate to assume that the adjusted income 
would remain constant in the year(s) subsequent to our review 
period. We do not have information regarding the companies' 
current income and the consequences of the adjusted income, 
and it would be inappropriate to gather such information because 
that would, in essence, constitute a new review. Therefore, 
we have not adjusted the cash deposit. 
   Unlike the above changes, we verified that the GOM has eliminated 
the Abatement of Five Percent of the Value of Indigenous Malaysian 
Materials Used in Exports Program. We consider this program 
to be a program-wide change because it occurred before we published 
the preliminary results and the change can be measured. We also 
verified that there are no residual benefits. As such, we have 
adjusted the cash deposit rate to reflect this change. 
   Comment 12: The GOM claims that Section 707 of the Act prohibits 
the Department from ordering the collection of countervailing 
duties on entries made on or after April 28, 1992 and before 
August 25, 1992. 
   Department's Position: We agree. See the ``Final Results 
of Review'' section of this notice. 

Final Results of Review 

   After considering all comments received, we determine the 
bounty or grant to be 3.30 percent ad valorem for the period 
January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. 
   The Department issued the its preliminary affirmative countervailable 
duty determination in the investigation on December 30, 1991 
(56 FR 67276). However, the ITC terminated its injury determination 
on Malaysian extruded rubber thread in light of the revocation 
of duty-free status under the Generalized System of Preferences, 
effective March 31, 1992. Therefore, as a result of the ITC 
determination, the Department issued instructions to Customs 
to liquidate entries of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to March 31, 
1992, without the imposition of countervailing duties. (See 
Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination 
and Countervailing Duty Order; Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia 
(58 FR 41084; August 2, 1993)). 
   In accordance with 705(a)(1) of the Act, the final determination 
in the investigation was extended to coincide with the final 
antidumping determination involving the same product from Malaysia 
(57 FR 38472; August 25, 1992). Pursuant to section 705 of the 
Act and Article 5.3 of the GATT Subsidies Code, we cannot require 
suspension of liquidation for more than 120 days without the 
issuance of a countervailing duty order. 

---- page 17520 ----

Therefore, the Department instructed Customs to terminate the 
suspension of liquidation on the subject merchandise entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 
28, 1992. The Department reinstated suspension of liquidation 
and required cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties 
of entries made on or after August 25, 1992, the date of publication 
of the countervailing duty order (57 FR 38472). As such, merchandise 
entered on or after April 28, 1992 and before August 25, 1992 
is to be liquidated without regard to countervailing duties. 
   The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
countervailing duties of 3.30 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. 
invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 
31, 1992 and before April 28, 1992, and on all shipments of 
the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after August 25, 1992 and exported on 
or before December 31, 1992. 
   The elimination of the Abatement of Five Percent of the Value 
of Indigenous Malaysian Materials Used in Exports Program reduces 
the total estimated duty deposit to 3.18 percent ad valorem. 
Therefore, the Department will instruct the Customs Service 
to collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties 
of 3.18 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice price on all 
shipments of this merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final 
results of this administrative review. This deposit requirement 
will remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review. 
   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: March 29, 1995.  

Susan G. Esserman, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. 95-8513 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P  



The Contents entry for this article reads as follows: International Trade Administration NOTICES Countervailing duties: Extruded rubber thread from- Malaysia, 17515