[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42530-42532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20201]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-357-404]


Certain Apparel From Argentina; Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain 
apparel from Argentina. We preliminarily determine the net bounty or 
grant to be zero for Agrest, S.A. (Agrest), Comercio Internacional, 
S.A. (Comercio), IVA, S.A. (IVA), and Leger, S.A. (Leger), 15.87 
percent ad valorem for Pulloverfin, S.A. (Pulloverfin) and 0.76 percent 
ad valorem for all other companies for the period January 1, 1991 
through December 31, 1991. If the final results remain the same as 
these preliminary results of administrative review, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as indicated 
above. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorenza Olivas or Judy Kornfeld, 
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 March 12, 1985, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(50 FR 9846) the countervailing duty order on certain apparel from 
Argentina. On March 5, 1992, the Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' (57 FR 7910) of 
this countervailing duty order. We received a timely request for review 
from the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union.
    We initiated the review, covering the period January 1, 1991 
through December 31, 1991 (POR), on April 13, 1992 (57 FR 12797). The 
review covers 5 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise, 
which accounted for substantially all exports of certain apparel during 
the POR, and 10 programs. (See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from 
Team Regarding Certain Apparel from Argentina dated January 14, 1995, 
on file in the public file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of 
the Department of Commerce).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(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. However, references to the 
Department's Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Request for Public Comments, 54 FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed 
Regulations), are provided solely for further explanation of the 
Department's countervailing duty practice. Although the Department has 
withdrawn the particular rulemaking proceeding pursuant to which the 
Proposed Regulations were issued, the subject matter of these 
regulations is being considered in connection with an ongoing 
rulemaking proceeding which, among other things, is intended to conform 
the Department's regulations to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See 
60 FR 80 (Jan. 3, 1995).

Scope of the Review

    The subject merchandise is certain apparel from Argentina. During 
the review period, this merchandise was classifiable under the 
following HTS numbers, which are based on the amended conversion of the 
scopes of the countervailing duty order. See, Certain Textile Mill 
Products From Mexico, Certain Apparel From Argentina, and Certain 
Apparel From Thailand (58 FR 4151; January 13, 1993).

6104.41.00, 6104.43.10, 6104.44.10, 6104.51.00, 6104.53.10, 6104.61.00, 
6104.63.15, 6105.10.00, 6105.20.20, 6106.10.00, 6106.20.10, 6106.90.10, 
6109.90.20, 6110.10.20, 6110.20.20, 6111.10.00, 6112.41.00, 6112.49.00, 
6115.20.00, 6115.91.00, 6115.93.10, 6115.99.14, 6116.91.00, 6116.93.15, 
6201.12.20, 6202.11.00, 6202.13.30, 6202.91.10, 6202.91.20, 6202.92.20, 
6202.93.40, 6203.22.30, 6203.42.40, 6204.11.00, 6204.13.10, 6204.19.10, 
6204.21.00, 6204.31.20, 6204.33.40, 6204.39.20, 6204.41.20, 6204.42.30, 
6204.43.30, 6204.44.30, 6204.51.00, 6204.53.20, 6204.59.20, 6204.61.00, 
6204.63.25, 6204.69.20, 6205.10.20, 6206.20.30, 6206.40.25, 6209.10.00, 
6209.20.10, 6209.20.50, 6209.90.30, 6211.12.30, 6211.41.00, 6214.30.00, 
6214.40.00.

Best Information Available (BIA) for Pulloverfin

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to use BIA 
``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to produce 
information requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or 
otherwise significantly impedes an investigation . . . .''
    In this review, Pulloverfin, a producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise, did not respond to the Department's initial and 
supplemental questionnaires; therefore, we are assigning Pulloverfin a 
rate based on BIA. In determining what rate to use as BIA, the 
Department follows a two-tiered methodology. The Department normally 
assigns lower BIA rates to those respondents who cooperated in an 
administrative review and rates based on more adverse assumptions to 
respondents who did not cooperate. Since Pulloverfin did not cooperate, 
we are assigning a BIA rate of 15.87 percent ad valorem, which is the 
highest rate from any prior proceeding of this order and which is the 
rate Pulloverfin received in the investigation (See, Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determinations and Countervailing Orders: Certain 
Textile Mill Products and Apparel from Argentina (50 FR 9846; March 12, 
1985)).

[[Page 42531]]


Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    In accordance with our normal practice, we calculated the net 
bounty or grant on a country-wide basis by first calculating the bounty 
or grant rate for each company subject to the administrative review. We 
then weight-averaged the rate received by each company using as the 
weight its share of total Argentine exports to the United States of 
subject merchandise, including all companies, even those with de 
minimis and zero rates. We then summed the individual companies' 
weight-averaged rates to determine the bounty or grant rate from all 
programs benefitting exports of subject merchandise 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 net bounty or grant rate calculated for 
each company to determine whether individual company rates differed 
significantly from the weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to 
19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). All companies subject to the review had 
significantly different net bounty or grant rates during the review 
period pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). These companies are treated 
separately for assessment and cash deposit purposes. All other 
companies are assigned the country-wide rate.

Analysis of Programs

I. Program Previously Determined to Confer Bounties or Grants

Rebate of Indirect Taxes (Reembolso/Reintegro)
    The Reembolso program provides a cumulative tax rebate paid upon 
export and is calculated as a percentage of the f.o.b. invoice price of 
the exported merchandise. As stated in Sec. 355.44(d)(4)(ii) of the 
Proposed Regulations (54 FR 23382), the Department will find that the 
entire amount of any such rebate is countervailable unless the 
following conditions are met: (1) the program operates for the purpose 
of rebating prior stage cumulative indirect taxes and/or import 
charges; (2) the government accurately ascertained the level of the 
rebate; and (3) the government reexamines its schedules periodically to 
reflect the amount of actual indirect taxes and/or import charges paid. 
In prior investigations and administrative reviews of the Argentine 
Reembolso program, the Department determined that these conditions have 
been met (See, e.g., Leather Wearing Apparel from Argentina, Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 10410; 
March 12, 1991); Certain Apparel from Argentina, Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 41823; August 23, 
1991).
    However, once a rebate program meets this threshold, the Department 
must still determine in each case whether there is an overrebate; that 
is, the Department must still analyze whether the rebate exceeds the 
total amount of indirect taxes and import duties borne by inputs that 
are physically incorporated into the exported product. If the rebate 
exceeds the amount of allowable indirect taxes and import duties on 
physically incorporated inputs, the Department will, pursuant to 
Sec. 355.44(d)(4)(i) of the Proposed Regulations, find a 
countervailable benefit equal to the difference between the Reembolso 
rebate rate and the allowable rate determined by the Department (i.e., 
the overrebate).
    To determine whether there was an overrebate during the review 
period, the Department requested the Government of Argentina (GOA) to 
provide information on any changes to the Reembolso program for certain 
apparel. According to the information provided, the Reembolso program 
continued to be governed by Decree 1555/86, which modified the 
Reembolso program and set precise and transparent guidelines to 
implement the refund of indirect taxes and import charges. The decree 
established three broad rebate levels covering all products and 
industry sectors. The rates for levels I, II and III were 10 percent, 
12.5 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. Based on the GOA's 1986 
calculation of the tax incidence in the apparel industry, this industry 
was classified in level II.
    In April 1989, the GOA suspended cash payment of rebates under the 
Reembolso program. Pursuant to the Emergency Economic Law dated 
September 25, 1989 (Law 23,697), the suspension of cash payments was 
continued for an additional 180 days. Rebates accrued during the 
suspension period were to be paid in export credit bonds. On March 4, 
1990, the entire program was suspended for 90 days by Decree 435/90. 
Decree 1930/90 suspended cash payments of the reembolso for an 
additional 12-month period.
    Decree 612/91, dated April 10, 1991, reinstated cash payments of 
the indirect tax rebates and import charges and reduced the rate for 
the apparel industry from 12.5 percent to 8.3 percent. Decree 1011/91, 
dated May 29, 1991, abolished Decree 1555/86 and incorporated the 
reduced rebate rates introduced by Decree 612/91. Therefore, during the 
POR, rebates were suspended from January 1 through April 10, 1991, and 
the rebate rate was 8.3 percent from April 11 through December 31, 
1991.
    Using the information provided in the questionnaire response, we 
calculated the allowable tax incidence for the subject merchandise 
based on the 1986 study which was in effect during the review period. 
We found that the rebate of indirect taxes did not exceed the total 
amount of allowable cumulative indirect taxes and/or import charges 
paid on physically incorporated inputs, and prior stage indirect taxes 
levied on the exported product at the final stage of production. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there was no benefit from 
this program during the POR. In future reviews, we will continue to 
examine this program to determine if there is an overrebate.

II. Other Programs

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
exporters of apparel did not apply for or receive benefits under them 
during the review period:
     Tax Deduction Under Decree 173/85
     Exemption from Stamp Taxes Under Decree 186/74
     Industrial Parks
     Low Cost Loans for Projects Outside of Buenos Aires
     Tucaman Regional Tax Incentives
     Patagonion Regional Tax Incentives
     Incentives for Exports from Southern Ports
     Corrientes Regional Tax Incentive
     Export Financing

Preliminary Results of Review

    For the period January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1991, we 
preliminarily determine the net bounty or grant to be zero for Agrest, 
Comercio, IVA, and Leger, 15.87 percent ad valorem for Pulloverfin and 
0.76 percent ad valorem for all other companies. In accordance with 19 
CFR 255.7, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad valorem is de minimis.
    If the final results of this review remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as follows for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise exported from Argentina on or 
after January 1, 1991 and on or before December 31, 1991: zero for 
Agrest, Comercio, IVA and Leger; 15.87 percent ad valorem for 
Pulloverfin and 0.76 percent ad valorem for all other companies. 

[[Page 42532]]

    The Department also intends to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties of zero 
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of this 
merchandise from Agrest, Comercio, IVA and Leger, and to collect a cash 
deposit of 15.87 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments 
of this merchandise from Pulloverfin and 0.76 percent of the f.o.b. 
invoice price on shipments of this merchandise from other companies 
from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation 
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than 
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
355.38(b). Interested parties may submit written arguments in case 
briefs on these preliminary results within 30 days of the date of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, may be submitted seven days after the time limit for filing the 
case brief. Parties who submit written arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held seven days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal 
briefs. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on 
interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(e).
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs, under section 355.38(c), are due. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief 
or at a hearing.
    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: August 8, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-20201 Filed 8-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P