[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 194 (Friday, October 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52380-52381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24932]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-357-404]


Certain Apparel From Argentina; 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 August 16, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results 
of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain 
apparel from Argentina for the period January 1, 1991 through December 
31, 1991. We have completed this review and determine the net subsidy 
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. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess countervailing duties as indicated above.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1995.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 16, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 42530) the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on certain apparel from 
Argentina. 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. We received no comments. The review covers the period January 
1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. The review involves 5 companies and 
10 programs.

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. 
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 determining what rate to use as BIA, the Department follows a 
two-tiered methodology. The Department normally assigns lower BIA rates 
for those respondents who cooperated in an 

[[Page 52381]]
administrative review (tier two) and rates based on more adverse 
assumptions for respondents who do not cooperate in the review, or who 
significantly impede the proceeding (tier one). Cf. Allied Signal 
Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F. 2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 
28 F. 3d 1188, cert. denied, 1995 U.S. lexis 100 (1995) (Allied-
Signal). See also Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review: AFBs from Singapore (58 FR 47122; September 7, 1993).
    In this review, Pulloverfin did not respond to the Department's two 
requests for information; therefore, we are assigning Pulloverfin a 
tier one rate based on BIA. The rate we are applying is 15.87 percent 
ad valorem. This rate reflects 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)).

Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    We calculated the net subsidy on a country-wide basis by first 
calculating the subsidy 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 subsidy 
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 Sec. 355.7 (1994), we proceeded 
to the next step, and examined the net subsidy rate calculated for each 
company to determine whether individual company rates differed 
significantly from the weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to 
19 CFR Sec. 355.22(d)(3). All companies subject to the review had 
significantly different net subsidy rates during the review period 
pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 355.22(d)(3). These companies are treated 
separately for assessment and cash deposit purposes. All other 
companies are assigned the country-wide rate. See Ceramica Regiomontana 
S.A. v. United States, 853 F Supp. 431, 439 (CIT 1994).

Analysis of Programs

    Based upon our analysis of the questionnaire response we determine 
the following:

I. Programs Conferring Bounties or Grants

Rebate of Indirect Taxes (Reembolso/Reintegro)
    In the preliminary results we found this program to be 
countervailable. However, the program conferred no benefits on the 
subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). Since we 
received no comments on our preliminary results, our findings remain 
unchanged in these final results.

II. Programs Found Not to be Used

    In the preliminary results we found that the producers and/or 
exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or receive 
benefits under the following programs during the period of review:

A. Tax Deduction Under Decree 173/85
B. Exemption from Stamp Taxes Under Decree 186/74
C. Industrial Parks
D. Low Cost Loans for Projects Outside Buenos Aires
E. Tucaman Regional Tax Incentives
F. Patagonion Regional Tax Incentives
G. Incentives for Exports from Southern Ports
H. Corrientes Regional Tax Incentive
I. Export Financing

Since we received no comments on our preliminary results, our findings 
remain unchanged in these final results.

Final Results of Review

    For the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991, we 
determine the net subsidy 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.
    The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the 
following countervailing duties:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Manufacturer/exporter                        Rate  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agrest, Comercio, IVA and Leger...............................     0.00 
Pulloverfin...................................................    15.87 
All other companies...........................................     0.76 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will 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 the subject merchandise from 
Agrest, Comercio, IVA and Leger, and to collect a cash deposit of 15.87 
percent ad valorem of the F.O.B. invoice price on all shipments of the 
subject merchandise from Pulloverfin and 0.76 percent ad valorem of the 
F.O.B. invoice price on shipments of the subject merchandise from all 
other companies entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the date of publication of the final results of this 
administrative review.
    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). Timely written notification 
of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    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: September 29, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-24932 Filed 10-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P