NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [C-559-001] Certain Refrigeration Compressors From the Republic of Singapore; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review Wednesday, December 26, 1990 AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative reviews. SUMMARY: On May 22, 1990, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of its administrative reviews of the agreement suspending the countervailing duty investigation on certain refrigeration compressors from the Republic of Sinagapore. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. In our review of the comments received, we determined that additional information was required for our analysis. To obtain this information, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire on July 19, 1990. Further information was requested and received in October and November 1990. Based on our analysis of this information, we have recalculated the export charge rates published in the preliminary results of these reviews. We have now completed these reviews and determine that Matsushita Refrigeration Industries (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (MARIS), Matsushita Electric Trading (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (METOS), currently known as Asia Matsushita Electric (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, and the Government of the Republic of Singapore, the signatories to the suspension agreement, have complied with the terms of the suspension agreement during the periods January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986, and January 1, 1987 through March 31, 1988. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 1990. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Megan Pilaroscia or Barbara Williams, Office of Agreements Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 377-3793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: . Background On May 22, 1990, the Department of Commerce ("the Department") published in the Federal Register (55 FR 21069) the preliminary results of its administrative reviews of the agreement suspending the countervailing duty investigation on certain refrigeration compressors from the Republic of Singapore (48 FR 51170) November 7, 1983). We have new completed these reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Traiff Act of 1930 ("the Traiff Act"). Scope of Review Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of Singaporean hermetic refrigeration compressors rated not over one-quarter horsepower. During the review periods, such merchandise was classifiable under item number 661.0900 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated. This merchandise is currently classifiable under item number 8414.30.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The reviews cover one producer and one exporter of the subject merchandise. These two companies, along with the Government of Singapore, are the signatories to the suspension agreement. The reviews cover the periods January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986, and January 1, 1987 through March 31, 1988, and five programs. *53029 Analysis of Comments Received We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. We received written comments from petitioner, Tecumseh Products Company, and rebuttal comments from respondents. Our analysis of these comments resulted in additional information being requested from respondents on two matters. The information received on one of these issues resulted in a recalculation of the export charge rates published in the preliminary results of these reviews. Comment 1: Tecumseh takes issue with the inclusion of refrigeration compressor parts in this proceeding. Tecumseh states that because respondents report sales of compressor parts as well as compressors for purposes of calculating the net subsidy, the Department should specifically state that the suspension agreement covers compressors and all components, whether the parts are assembled or in kits. Alternatively, petitioner states that the Department should excise the value of parts from the export charge rate calculation. Respondents state that all compressor shipments include relays and verious other parts necessary for compressors to function. They state they have always maintained that both fully assembled and "kit" form compressor shipments are covered by the suspension agreement, thus no clarification with respect to compressors and compressor components is required. Department's Position: The suspension agreement covers complete compressors, whether fully assembled or in "kit" form. Discrete parts are not covered by the suspension agreement but are included in the export charge rate calculations for these review periods, as explained below, because they were included by respondents in the reported benefit. To clarify the products for which respondents receive a benefit, and in order to determine what values should be used in calculating the export charge rates, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to respondents. In their response, respondents state that the reported reduction in MARIS' tax liability includes export profits earned for all products exported by MARIS directly and indirectly during the review periods. These products consisted of complete compressors, compressor parts, as well as other non-compressor-related products. Although discrete compressor parts and non-compressor-related parts are not included in the suspension agreement, the Department has determined that these exports should be included in the export charge rate calculations, as MARIS' reported tax liability reduction includes export profits earned on these products as well as complete compressors, and the Department could not separate out these profits from the export charge rate calculations. The benefit was allocated over export values which include compressor parts but do not include non-compressor-related products. While we requested that respondents provide us with export values for non-compressor-related products, they did not do so. Without this information, we have relied on the best information available, and have calculated the export charge rates with only compressor and compressor parts f.o.b. export values. The Department has tied the benefit received by respondents are closely as possible to those products receiving the benefit. It should be noted that the absence of non-compressor-related product f.o.b. export values from the calculation as a result of incompleteness of respondents' submission is to their disadvantage. Moreover, the sales values provided for non-compressor-related products indicate that the omitted f.o.b. export values would be relatively small amounts with minimal effects on the export charge rates. Comment 2: Tecumseh argues that new information exists to warrant review of the Skills Development Fund and Public Utilities Board Surcharge. Tecumseh states that since verification in the first administrative review, when these programs were found to be generally available, the U.S. government has found that these programs are offered only to specific industry segements. Tecumseh cites a 1988 State Department report on the investment climate in Singapore, which states that investment incentives are offered selectively to companies in high-tech manufacturing and services. Tecumseh also contends that revisions to the U.S. trade law by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 limit the Department from accepting at face value that these programs are "generally available" without examining how the programs are actually implemented during the periods of review and requests that the Department review these programs through verification. Respondents reply that these programs were reviewed by the Department during verification in the first administrative review and were found to be generally available and not countervailable. Respondents state that there have been no changes in these programs and that the State Department report contains no specific reference to either program or the refrigeration compressor industry. Respondents further state that the part of the report cited by petitioner refers to the Government of Singapore's efforts to attract "high-tech" industries, and that refrigeration compressor manufacturing is not a high-tech industry. Respondents maintain that this report provides no basis for renewed investigation of either program. Respondents also contend that changes to the countervailing duty law as a result of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act concerning the definition of "generally available" in no way compel the Department to reinvestigate these programs. They argue that these programs are still generally available as previously confirmed during verification and that no new evidence has been provided to indicate that either program has since been revised. Department's Position: In the absence of new information, the Department will not re-examine any program previously found to be not countervailable. The Department reviewed these programs using the de facto analysis contained in the 1988 law in a previous review and found them generally available. (See Final Results of Administrative Review, (50 FR 30493, July 26, 1985).) Tecumseh has not provided the Department with any information indicating that either program has in fact changed; the State Department report mentions neither these programs nor the refrigeration compressor industry. Comment 3: Tecumseh argues that exporters should not be entitled to deduct export charges as business expenses in calculating profit. Tecumseh claims that the result of deductions permitted MARIS by the Singaporean government is to reduce the amount of profit and, consequently, the amount of benefit received by MARIS. They state that this is a partial reinstatement of the net effect of the benefit and is contrary to the intent of the countervailing duty law. Respondents state that export charges are permissible deductible business expenses. Respondents state that the deductions, made pursuant to Singapore's general tax laws, are available to any company doing business in Singapore, and in no way can be conceived of as a subsidy. They argue that petitioner's contention is not supported by any countervailing duty determination disallowing these tax *53030 deductions. Respondents maintain that Tecumseh's contentions regarding this business expense should be rejected by the Department. Department's Position: Pursuant to paragraph two of the suspension agreement, the Government of Singapore is obligated to offset completely the amount of the net bounty or grant determined by the Department to exist with respect to the subject product. According to the supplementary information we received from respondents, MARIS made the export charge deducations before calculating exempt export profit in both periods of review. As a result, export charge rates based on these figures do not completely offset the amount of the net bounty or grant in accordance with the suspension agreement. We therefore determine that the deduction of the export charges in each review period should be offset by adding the amount of the deductions back to MARIS' profit figures, and recalculating the export charge rates. As a result, the rate for the period January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986 increases to 4.37 percent, and the rate for the period January 1, 1987 through March 31, 1988 increases to 2.23 percent. These export charge rates offset completely the benefits received by MARIS. Comment 4: Tecumseh requests that the Department review the technical assistance fees paid by MARIS to its parent company, citing an entry in MARIS' financial statement. They argue that the particular intercompany treatment given to these fees in these reviews gives possible rise to countervailable benefits. Respondents state that the Department has previously determined that deduction of these fees is not countervailable because they are not excessive. They maintain that the financial statement entry questioned by petitioner was to correct an entry on a previous MARIS financial statement. Respondents state that MARIS paid income tax on the sum in question, and that no benefit was received. Department's Position: Petitioner has provided no basis for finding that the intercompany treatment of the technical assistance fees by MARIS' parent company provides a countervailable benefit. The Department considers the fee situation examined in these reviews to be the result of private contractual arrangements and does not find that a countervailable benefit has been conveyed. Comment 5: Tecumseh states that the Department should analyze how the export incentives program benefits could decrease for MARIS while exports of their refrigeration compressors to the United States increased. Techumseh claims that because the export incentives program is unchanged and these exports have risen, the export charge rate for the latest review should be significantly higher. Respondents reply that the export charge rate is calculated by allocating MARIS' net tax savings from its operation as an Export Enterprise over the value of METOS' total, worldwide compressor exports. Respondents maintain that fluctuations in compressor shipments to the United States are therefore irrelevant to the calculation. Department's Position: The suspension agreement states that the Government of Singapore is to offset completely the amount of the net bounty or grant determined to exist with respect to the subject merchandise by collection of an export charge. The export charge rates calculated by the Department in these final results are correct as they offset the benefit by allocating MARIS' total tax savings under Part IV of the Economic Expansion Incentives Act over the f.o.b. value of METOS' total exports of complete compressors and compressor parts--not just exports to the United States. The Department uses total exports because the benefit is reported on that basis and is not limited to exports to the United States. The export charge rates fluctuate among reviews as they are based on export earning-related tax savings and export values, both of which fluctuate. In addition, the Department's methodology for calculation of the export charge rate uses the period in which the benefit was actually received, not accrued. In this way, the tax savings benefits received in a given review period, upon filing of taxes, are tied to export earnings of previous years. Comment 6: Tecumseh claims that intercompany documents for payment of the export charge (debit notes) provided in the questionnaire response suggest understatement of values for export charge assessment purposes. They state that the documentation indicates a shift in invoice numbers used by respondents. Tecumseh argues that one result of such a change could be to reduce the value reported and thereby reduce the total amount of export charges collected because the charge is assessed on an ad valorem basis. Tecumseh asks that the Department consider only transactions made before the invoicing methodology change and use an average charge per transaction as a basis for calculating the amount of charges that should have been collected during the review period. Respondents argue that there is no evidence of understatement of values for export charge assessment purposes. They state that the export charge documentation clearly indicates that there was no decline in the export charge payments during the review period. Respondents maintain that the invoice number change provides no basis for petitioner's allegation of undervaluing. Department's Position: The Department has seen no evidence to indicate that incorrect values have been provided or that the change was for other than company recordkeeping purposes. Comment 7: Tecumseh argues that Singapore's Control of Manufacture Act ("the Act"), described in the 1988 State Department report on the investment climate in Singapore, confers monopoly power and profits to respondents that must be offset. Respondents state that the Act is irrelevant to this case, and that the Act requires only that companies wishing to produce specified products obtain a special license and that the Act does not indicate that there is a limited number of licenses available or that the Singaporean government will grant only one license for the manufacture of each product listed. Respondents maintain that Tecumseh has provided no proof that there are, in fact, restrictions on the entry of new refrigeration compressor producers into Singapore by the Act, and they note that Tecumseh admits that MARIS is not subject to the act. Department's Position: There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the Act requires a special license to export refrigeration compressors and petitioner provided no basis for finding that respondents receive countervailable benefits under the Act. Final Results of Review After considering the comments received, we determine that the signatories to the suspension agreement have complied with the terms of the suspension agreement, including the payment of the provisional export charge for both periods. From January 1, 1986 through January 9, 1987, a provisional export charge rate of 4.92 percent was in effect, and from January 9, 1987 through March 31, 1988, a rate of 8.35 percent was in effect. In addition, we determine the total bounty or grant to be 4.37 percent of the f.o.b. value of the merchandise for the January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986 review period and 2.23 percent of the f.o.b. value of the merchandise for the January 1, 1987 through March 31, *53031 1988 review period. The suspension agreement states that the Government of Singapore will offset completely the net bounty or grant determined by the Department to exist with respect to the subject merchandise by the collection of an export charge applicable to exports of the subject product. Following the methodology outlined in section B.4 of the agreement, the Department determines that, for the period January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986, and the period January 1, 1987 through March 31, 1988, a negative adjustment may be made to the provisional export charge rates in effect. These rates, established in the notices of the final results of the first and second administrative reviews of the suspension agreement (50 FR 30493, July 26, 1985; 52 FR 848, January 9, 1987), are 4.92 percent and 8.35 percent, respectively. For the periods covered by the present reviews, the Government of Singapore may refund the difference to the companies. The Department intends to notify the Government of Singapore that the provisional export charge rate on all exports of the subject merchandise to the United States with Outward Declarations filed on or after the date of publication of the final results of these administrative reviews shall be 2.23 percent of the f.o.b. value of the merchandise. These administrative reviews and notices are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22. Dated: December 19, 1990. Marjorie A. Chorlins, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 90-30189 Filed 12-24-90; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M