[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39937-39938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19253]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-201-003]


Ceramic Tile From Mexico; 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 May 18, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on ceramic tile 
from Mexico (60 FR 267177) for the period January 1, 1993 through 
December 31, 1993. We have now completed this review and determine the 
total bounty or grant to be 0.48 percent ad valorem for all companies. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad 
valorem is de minimis. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess countervailing assess countervailing duties as indicated above.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, 
Office of Countervailing Compliance, 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

    On May 18, 1995, the DeparFederal Register (60 FR 26717) the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the countervailing 
duty order on ceramic tile from Mexico (47 FR 20012; May 10, 1982). The 
Department has now completed this administrative 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. On June 19, 1995, a case brief was submitted by Ceramica 
Regiomontana, S.A., a producer of the subject merchandise which 
exported ceramic tile to the United States during the review period 
(respondent).
    The review period is January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993. 
This review involves 40 companies and the following programs:
    (1) BANCOMEXT Financing for Exporters;
    (2) The Program for Temporary Importation of Products used in the 
Production of Exports (PITEX);
    (3) NAFINSA Long-Term Loans
    (4) Other BANCOMEXT preferential financing;
    (5) Other Dollar-Denominated Financing Programs;
    (6) Fiscal Promotion Certificates (CEPROFI);
    (7) Import duty reductions and exemptions;
    (8) State tax incentives;
    (9) Article 15 Loans;
    (10) NAFINSA FONEI-type financing; and
    (11) NAFINSA FOGAIN-type financing.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the statute and to the Department's regulations are in 
reference to the provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of Mexican ceramic 
tile, including non-mosaic, glazed, and unglazed ceramic floor and wall 
tile. During the review period, such merchandise was classifiable under 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 6907.10.0000, 
6907.90.0000, 6908.10.0000, and 6908.90.0000. The HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    We calculated the total 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 rate received by 
each company, even those with de minimis and zero rates, using as the 
weight its share of total Mexican exports to the United States of 
subject merchandise. We then summed the individual companies' weighted-
average rates to determine the bounty or grant from all programs 
benefitting exports of subject merchandise to the United States. Since 
the country-wide rate calculated using this methodology was de minimis, 
as defined by 19 CFR Sec. 355.7, no further calculations were 
necessary.

Analysis of Comments

    Comment 1: As in past reviews, Ceramica Regiomontana contends that 
the Department does not have the legal authority to assess 
countervailing duties on ceramic tile from Mexico and must terminate 
the review. Effective April 23, 1985, the date of the ``Understanding 
Between the United States and Mexico regarding Subsidies and 
Countervailing Duties'' (the Understanding), Mexico became a ``country 
under the Agreement.'' Therefore, Ceramica Regiomontana argues that 19 
U.S.C. 1671 requires an affirmative injury determination as a 
prerequisite to the imposition of countervailing duties on any Mexican 
merchandise imported on or after April 23, 1985. Furthermore, Ceramica 
Regiomontana argues that the only applicable statutory authority for 
this review would be 19 U.S.C. 1303; however, because Mexico became a 
country under the Agreement, the provisions of section 1303 could no 
longer apply. Therefore, Ceramica Regiomontana maintains the Department 
has no authority to conduct this review and the review should be 
terminated.
    Department's Position: We fully addressed this issue in a previous 
administrative review of this countervailing duty order. See Ceramic 
Tile from Mexico; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review (55 FR 50744; December 10, 1990). The CIT and the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) have sustained the 
Department's legal position that Mexican imports subject to an 
outstanding countervailing duty order already in effect when Mexico 
entered into the Understanding are not entitled to an injury test 
pursuant to section 701 of the Act and paragraph 5 of the Understanding 
(Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A., et. al v. United States, Slip Op. 96-78, 
Court No. 89-06-00323 (May 5, 1994) (Ceramica Regiomontana''); Cementos 
Anajuac del Golfo, S.A. v. U.S., 879 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. 
denied, 110 S.CT. 1318 (1989)). The countervailing duty order on 
ceramic tile from Mexico was published prior to Mexico's entering into 
the Understanding and, therefore, imports of ceramic tile are not 
entitled 

[[Page 39938]]
to an injury test pursuant to section 701 of the Act.
    Comment 2: As in past administrative reviews, Ceramica Regiomontana 
contends that the Department incorrectly treated the benefit from the 
PITEX program as a grant. According to Ceramica Regiomontana, PITEX 
benefits should be calculated as interest-free loans similar to the 
Department's treatment of loan duty deferrals under a Peruvian program 
in Cotton Sheeting and Sateen from Peru; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty Order (49 FR 34542).
    Ceramica Regiomontana contends that the Department provides no 
legal justification for refusing to treat PITEX as an interest-free 
loan rather than a grant in Certain Textile Mill Products from Mexico; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 
50858). Furthermore, Ceramica Regiomontana argues that the Department 
bases its refusal to calculate PITEX as an interest-free loan on the 
difficulty of doing the calculation. Ceramica Regiomontana maintains 
that although there is no certainty whether a company will ultimately 
be exempt from payment of all or a portion of the duty, the deferral 
should be treated as a loan rather than a grant in accordance with 
legal requirements.
    Department's Position: We fully addressed this issue in the 
previous administrative review of this case. See Ceramic Tile from 
Mexico; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (60 
FR 19022; April 14, 1995). We stated that, under PITEX, an exporter may 
temporarily import machinery for five years. At the end of five years, 
the exporter can renew the temporary stay on an annual basis 
indefinitely. Since payment of import duties upon conversion to 
permanent import status is based on the depreciated value of the 
equipment at the time it is converted to permanent import status, the 
exporter can on an annual basis continue the temporary import status 
after the initial five year period until the depreciated value of the 
equipment is zero and no import duties are owed. Therefore, duty 
exemptions under PITEX are properly treated as grants, and we expensed 
them in full at the time of importation, when the exporters otherwise 
would have paid duties on the imported machinery. Id.; Final Negative 
Countervailing Duty Determination; Silicon Metal From Brazil (56 FR 
26988). Ceramica Regiomontana has presented us with no new evidence or 
arguments on this issue.
    Comment 3: Ceramica Regiomontana argues that the calculation of the 
PITEX net subsidy is incorrect because the Department improperly 
divided the PITEX benefit by each company's total exports. Ceramica 
Regiomontana contends that, since the machinery imported under the 
PITEX program may be used to produce products for both the export and 
domestic markets, the benefits from the program should be divided by 
total sales rather than by total exports. Furthermore, Ceramica 
Regiomontana argues that the program does not limit the use of imported 
machinery to production for export products only. According to Ceramica 
Regiomontana, machinery imported by the company is used for production 
of merchandise for both export and domestic markets.
    Ceramica Regiomontana claims that the Department's allocation 
method in PITEX is incorrect because it does not measure the benefit of 
the subsidy to the recipient and the proper method of allocation would 
be based on total sales.
    Department's Position: We disagree. In order to meet the 
eligibility criteria for the PITEX program, a company is required to 
have a proven export record, and to use the imported merchandise (both 
raw materials and equipment) in the production of goods for export. 
Since receipt of benefits under PITEX is tied to the company's exports, 
thereby making the program an export subsidy, the proper basis for 
allocation of these benefits is total exports, as opposed to total 
sales. See Certain Textile Mill Products from Mexico; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 12175, 12178; March 
22, 1991).

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the total bounty or grant 
to be 0.48 percent ad valorem for all companies. In accordance with 19 
CFR Sec. 355.7, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad valorem is de 
minimis.
    Therefore, the Department will instruct the Customs Service to 
liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, shipments of this 
merchandise from all companies on or after January 1, 1993, and on or 
before December 31, 1993.
    The Department will instruct the Customs Service to collect cash 
deposits of estimated countervailing duties at a zero rate, as provided 
by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, on shipments of this merchandise from 
all companies entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the date of publication of this notice. This deposit 
requirement shall 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)), 19 CFR Sec. 355.22 
and 19 CFR 355.25.

    Dated: July 28, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-19253 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P