[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 170 (Friday, August 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45941-45945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-301-003; C-301-601]


Roses and Other Cut Flowers From Colombia; Miniature Carnations 
From Colombia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews of Suspended Investigations

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative 
reviews and termination of suspended investigations.

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

SUMMARY: On March 8, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of its administrative 
reviews of, and its intent to terminate, the agreements suspending the 
countervailing duty investigations on roses and other cut flowers 
(``roses'') from Colombia and on miniature carnations (``minis'') from 
Colombia. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. After reviewing all the comments received, we 
determine that the Government of Colombia (``GOC'') and producers/
exporters of roses and minis have complied with the terms of the 
suspension agreements during the period January 1, 1994 through 
December 31, 1994. We also determine that the producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise have not received countervailable benefits or used 
any program under review for a period of at least five consecutive 
years. Additionally, we determine that the GOC and producers/exporters 
of the subject merchandise (respondents) have provided sufficient 
evidence for the Department to determine that it is likely that 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise will not in the future apply 
for or receive any net subsidy on the subject merchandise from those 
programs the Department has found countervailable in any proceeding 
involving Colombia or from other countervailable programs. Therefore, 
we determine that respondents have met the requirements for termination 
of the countervailing duty suspended investigation on roses and other 
cut flowers and on miniature carnations as outlined in the Department's 
Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Johnson or Jean Kemp, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on or after January 1, 1995, the

[[Page 45942]]

effective date of amendments made to the Tariff Act in accordance with 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

Background

    On March 8, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(61 FR 9426) the preliminary results of its administrative reviews of 
the agreements suspending the countervailing duty investigations on 
roses and minis from Colombia. See Roses and Other Cut Flowers From 
Colombia; Suspension of Investigation, 48 FR 2158 (January 18, 1983); 
Roses and Other Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Revised Suspension 
Agreement, 51 FR 44930 (December 15, 1986); and Miniature Carnations 
from Colombia; Suspension of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 52 FR 
1353 (January 13, 1987). We have now completed these administrative 
reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 355.22.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by these administrative reviews constitute two 
``classes or kinds'' of merchandise: roses and minis from Colombia. 
During the period of review (``POR''), such merchandise covered by 
these suspension agreements was classifiable under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') item numbers 0603.10.60, 0603.10.70, 0603.10.80, and 
0603.90.00 for roses, and 0603.10.30 for minis. The HTS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written 
descriptions remain dispositive.
    These reviews of the suspended investigations involve over 600 
Colombian flower producers/exporters of roses, over 100 Colombian 
flower producers/exporters of minis, as well as the GOC. The suspension 
agreement for minis covers ten programs: (1) BANCOLDEX (funds for the 
promotion of exports); (2) Plan Vallejo; (3) Instituto de Fomento 
Industrial (IFI); (4) Fondo Financiero de Proyectos de Desarrollo 
(FONADE); (5) Financiero de Desarrollo Territorial (FINDETER); (6) Tax 
Reimbursement Certificate Program (``CERT''); (7) Free Industrial 
Zones; (8) Export Credit Insurance; (9) Countertrade; and (10) Research 
and Development. The suspension agreement for roses covers the ten 
programs listed above, as well as (11) Air Freight Rates. The POR is 
January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received comments from the respondents, the GOC 
and Associacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores 
(``Asocolflores''); and the petitioner, the Floral Trade Council 
(``FTC''). Comments submitted consist of petitioner's case brief of 
April 8, 1996; and respondents' case brief of April 5, 1996 and 
rebuttal brief of April 12, 1996.
    Comment 1: The FTC asserts that, prior to any termination, the 
Department must request confirmation that no CERT rebates were 
fraudulently received on flower exports of subject merchandise. The FTC 
further contends that this confirmation should be submitted in the form 
of warehoused documents or affidavits of personnel at Direccion de 
Investos y Aduanas Nacionales (``DIAN,'' the customs authority) 
associated with the preparation of DIAN's 1992 Annual report, in which 
it was noted that Panama and the Netherlands Antilles were eliminated 
from the CERT program due to fraud. Moreover, the FTC states that DIAN 
officials should also submit a certification describing what measures 
they put in place to eliminate the possibility of fraudulent receipt of 
CERT rebates over the five-year period. The FTC concludes that, absent 
such confirmation, the record shows ``only that flower exporters can 
receive CERT rebates on U.S. exports without detection in the absence 
of an investigation.''
    Respondents note that the Department examined the allegation 
regarding the submission of fictitious invoices for exports to Panama 
and the Netherlands Antilles in the 1991-92 review period, and found no 
evidence to support FTC's claims, and thus found that there was no 
evidence that CERT rebates were received for exports to the United 
States.
    Department's Position: In order to meet the regulatory requirements 
for termination of a suspended investigation under 355.25(a)(2), the 
Department must determine that all producers and exporters covered have 
not applied for or received any net subsidy on the merchandise for a 
period of at least five consecutive years, which in this case is the 
period 1990 through 1994. Petitioner's allegation concerning the 1991-
92 period was examined by the Department during that review, and the 
Department found no evidence to support an allegation of transshipment 
or reshipment of the subject merchandise. See Roses and Other Cut 
Flowers from Colombia; Miniature Carnations from Colombia; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews of Suspended 
Investigations (1991-2 Review) 60 FR 42539, 42540-1 (August 16, 1995), 
Comment 3. Hence, the Department determined that ``with respect to this 
issue the GOC and the flower producers/exporters were in compliance 
with the suspension agreements during the PORs.'' Because the 
Department found no indication that the terms of the suspension 
agreements were violated through the fraudulent receipt of CERT rebates 
on subject merchandise, there is no requirement on respondents to place 
any further documents, affidavits, or certifications on the record.
    In fact, the GOC has already certified that it has ``eliminated all 
subsidies on (i) miniature carnations and (ii) roses and all other 
fresh cut flowers exported to the United States, by abolishing for such 
merchandise for at least three consecutive years, all programs that the 
Secretary of Commerce has found countervailable,'' and that it will 
``not reinstate for such merchandise those programs or substitute other 
countervailable programs.'' See Letter from Counsel to Respondents to 
the Department of Commerce, February 2, 1996. Thus, the Department 
determines that no further certifications are warranted with regard to 
this issue.
    Comment 2: The FTC argues that because CERT rebates are not 
necessarily tied to third-country exports, the Department should 
reconsider its position that ``rebates tied to exports to third 
countries do not benefit the production or export of the subject 
merchandise.'' In particular, the FTC contends that under the new 
statute (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(5)(A)), a countervailable subsidy is a 
subsidy which is specific, and export subsidies are specific if they 
are contingent upon export performance (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(5A) (A) & 
(B)). Petitioners request that, prior to termination, the Department 
should require the GOC to abolish CERT rebates for all flower exports.
    Respondents argue that the statute, the Department's regulations, 
and past determinations clearly refute petitioner's contention. 
Furthermore, respondents assert that there is nothing in the URAA which 
would change the Department's policy.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. It is the 
Department's continuing policy that rebates tied to exports to third 
countries do not benefit the production or export of the subject 
merchandise destined for the United States. We found no evidence in the

[[Page 45943]]

questionnaire responses or at verification that would cause us to 
reconsider our position, in this POR or in the last five consecutive 
review periods. (See Roses and Other Cut Flowers from Colombia; 
Miniature Carnations From Colombia; Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews of Suspended Investigations, 1993 Review, 
61 FR 94229 (Comment 3) (March 8, 1996); Miniature Carnations from 
Colombia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review 
and Determination not to Terminate Suspended Investigation, 59 FR 10790 
(Comment 7) (March 8, 1994), and Roses and Other Cut Flowers from 
Colombia; Miniature Carnations from Colombia; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews of Suspended Investigations, 
60 FR 42541 (Comment 4) (August 16, 1995)).
    As the Department has previously noted in this case, it is the 
Department's policy that we will not allocate benefits tied to a 
product not under investigation over a product under investigation 
unless we have a clear reason to believe that such a benefit encourages 
production or export to the United States of the product under 
investigation. See Miniature Carnations from Colombia; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to 
Terminate Suspended Investigation, 59 FR 10790, 10794 (March 8, 1994), 
citing Industrial Nitrocellulose From France; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 52 FR 833 (January 9, 1987), 
and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Israel; Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 52 FR 3316 (February 3, 1987). As 
respondents have noted, the existence of export subsidies to third 
countries could in fact serve to encourage producers to export to those 
other countries, and not to the United States.
    While the URAA makes it clear that export subsidies are per se 
specific, specificity is not the issue. The issue is whether export 
subsidies explicitly tied to non-subject merchandise (i.e., exports to 
third countries) provide a countervailable benefit to subject 
merchandise. Nothing in the URAA or its legislative history indicates 
that Congress intended to countervail subsidies tied to exports to 
third countries. In fact, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1671(a) provides for the 
imposition of countervailing duties when a countervailable subsidy is 
provided to ``a class or kind of merchandise imported, or sold (or 
likely to be sold) for importation, into the United States * * * .'' 
(emphasis added). The Department is continuing its longstanding 
practice of not countervailing export subsidies tied to third 
countries. Moreover, since the CERT rebates do not benefit subject 
merchandise, it is not necessary that the GOC eliminate them on exports 
to third countries.
    Comment 3: The FTC asserts that the Department cannot terminate the 
suspended investigations for a period in which the Department could not 
determine whether signatories to both suspension agreements accounted 
for 85 percent of imports of the subject merchandise. Specifically, the 
FTC argues that for the purposes of satisfying termination 
requirements, the Department requires that the same producer/exporters 
account for 85 percent of the merchandise for a period of five 
consecutive years. Because the Department discovered, in the 1991 and 
1992 reviews, that the GOC had not maintained an up-to-date list of 
signatories for both suspension agreements, the FTC suggests that 
respondents have no way to guarantee that the same exporters have 
accounted for 85 percent of the merchandise for the periods 1990 
through 1994. See Roses and Other Cut Flowers from Colombia; Miniature 
Carnations from Colombia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews of Suspended Investigations (1991-2 Review) 60 
FR 42539, 42540 (August 16, 1995).
    Respondents argue that there is no 85-percent test for termination, 
but rather the termination standards require that no producer/exporter 
covered by the suspension agreement receive any net subsidy over the 
five-year period. Respondents note further that the Department found, 
in the 1993 review, that no countervailable benefits were provided 
during the POR to any flower producer/exporter. Because the statutory 
purpose of the 85 percent rule is to ensure that ``substantially all'' 
imports do not benefit from countervailable subsidies, according to 
respondents, the 85 percent requirement is met, given that the 
Department has verified that 100 percent of exports do not receive any 
benefit.
    Finally, respondents state that there is no Departmental 
requirement that the same producer/exporters must account for 85 
percent of the merchandise for a period of five consecutive years.
    Department's Position: Section 704(b) of the statute provides that 
Commerce may enter into a suspension agreement if the producers/
exporters accounting for ``substantially all'' of the imports of the 
subject merchandise agree to eliminate (or offset completely) 
countervailable subsidies. The regulations do not define 
``substantially all'' imports. However, the suspension agreements 
require that producer/exporters accounting for 85 percent of the 
imports must be subject to the terms of the suspension agreements. See 
48 FR 2158, 2161 (January 18, 1983) (roses); 52 FR 1353, 1356 (January 
13, 1987) (miniature carnations).
    The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary may 
terminate a suspended investigation if the Secretary concludes that all 
producer/exporters covered by the suspension agreements have not 
applied for or received any net subsidy on the subject merchandise for 
a period of at least five consecutive years. 19 C.F.R. 
Sec. 355.25(2)(i) (1995). In Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Costa Rica, 
the case cited by petitioner, the Department determined that the same 
producer/exporters who have accounted for 85 percent of the merchandise 
for a period of five consecutive years must not have applied for or 
received any net subsidy on the merchandise during that period in order 
for the Department to terminate the suspended investigation. However, 
the Department's concern in that case stemmed from the fact that, in 
its administration of that suspension agreement, the Government of 
Costa Rica eliminated subsidies only to signatories, not all producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise.
    In contrast, in implementing these agreements, the GOC has acted to 
ensure that 100 percent of companies producing and exporting the 
subject merchandise were in compliance with the terms of the roses and 
minis suspension agreements, whether or not those companies had signed 
these suspension agreements.
    The Department has found that all Colombian producers/exporters 
were in full compliance in the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 
administrative reviews of these suspension agreements. In the current 
1994 administrative reviews, the Department reviewed and verified 
information at each GOC agency for all producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise, regardless of their signatory status. The record 
evidence for the 1994 administrative reviews indicates that all 
Colombian producers/exporters have been in full compliance with the 
agreements. At verification, we analyzed the Colombian Customs 
Authority's export statistics of all flower companies exporting roses 
and minis to the United States and Puerto Rico. At the Central Bank, we 
checked computer records of exports with U.S. and Puerto Rican country 
identification codes showing that no CERT payments were made to any 
flower producers/exporters

[[Page 45944]]

for shipments of the subject merchandise.
    At BANCOLDEX, we reviewed and verified all PROEXPO/BANCOLDEX loans 
issued and outstanding in the POR (see Government Verification Report 
of February 27, 1996) and we have determined that all Colombian flower 
producers/exporters have complied with the terms of the suspension 
agreements during the POR. Similarly, we verified that no 
countervailable benefits were granted to or received by any flower 
producers/exporters for Plan Vallejo, Air Freight Rates, Free 
Industrial Zones, and the Export Credit Insurance Program.
    Thus, all Colombian flower producers/exporters have been required 
to comply with the terms of the suspension agreements. Further, the 
Department has determined that all producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise have been in full compliance with the suspension agreements 
for five consecutive years. The Department has verified that all 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise (not just signatories to the 
agreements) have not received subsides on the subject merchandise 
during the current POR or during any POR from 1990 through the 1994 
period. Therefore, the Department has determined that the requirements 
for termination of the suspended investigations have been met.
    Comment 4: The FTC claims that under the terms of the suspension 
agreements, the Department applies outdated benchmark interest rates to 
determine ``compliance'' with the suspension agreements. The FTC 
objects to the Department's practice in setting prospective and 
outdated benchmark interest rates to determine compliance with the 
terms of the suspension agreements. The FTC claims that the suspension 
agreements are not in the public interest because Colombian flower 
producers/exporters can ``technically'' comply with the terms of the 
suspension agreements while at the same time receive loans at 
preferential interest rates. Because the benchmarks are outdated, the 
FTC asserts, they are incapable of eliminating the net subsidy on 
flowers. FTC concludes that to terminate the suspension agreements, the 
Department must compare the PROEXPO/Bancoldex interest rates to current 
interest rate benchmarks for the five year period to determine that all 
producer/exporters covered by the suspension agreements have not 
applied for or received any net subsidy on the merchandise for a period 
of at least five consecutive years.
    Respondents note that the Department has addressed and rejected 
these arguments in earlier reviews of these suspension agreements. See 
Roses and Other Cut Flowers from Colombia; Miniature Carnations From 
Colombia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews 
of Suspended Investigations, 1993 Review, at 9431-32 (Comment 5), March 
8, 1996. Furthermore, respondents claim that petitioners have offered 
no basis that would support a different finding in the 1994 review.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. Because these 
suspension agreements are forward-looking, the Department sets 
benchmark interest rates prospectively for these agreements. (See 
Miniature Carnations from Colombia: Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review; 56 FR 14240 (April 8, 1991), Miniature 
Carnations from Colombia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Terminate Suspended 
Investigation, 59 FR 10790, (March 8, 1994), and Roses and Other Cut 
Flowers from Colombia: Miniature Carnations from Colombia: Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews of Suspended 
Investigations, 60 FR 42541 (August 16, 1995)).
    At verification for the 1994 POR, the Department examined 
documentation that indicated that BANCOLDEX charged interest rates on 
its short- and long-term loans above the Department's established 
benchmark rates in effect during the POR. The Department also found 
that the companies received BANCOLDEX loans on terms consistent with 
the suspension agreements. Consequently, we have determined that 
respondents were in compliance with the terms of the suspension 
agreements for the BANCOLDEX programs. Therefore, we determine that the 
GOC did not confer any countervailable benefits through the BANCOLDEX 
programs during the POR. Respondents complied with the suspension 
agreements' benchmarks and avoided receiving countervailable benefits 
during the POR, resulting in a situation analogous to non-use for the 
BANCOLDEX programs by Colombian flower producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise. Therefore, there is no basis for petitioner's 
claim that the suspension agreements are not in the public interest.
    Comment 5: The FTC asserts that the Department should reconsider 
its use of the subsidized FINAGRO interest rate when establishing 
short- and long-term benchmarks. The FTC argues instead that the 
Department use weighted-average interest rates of available non-
government-related financing at commercial lending rates maintained by 
the Central Bank. In addition, the FTC asserts, citing Rice From 
Thailand; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 57 FR 8437, and 8439 (March 10, 1992), that the Department is 
not required to look to interest rates available to the agricultural 
sector, when the rates are not available to flower producers/exporters.
    Respondents note that the FTC has argued this issue repeatedly in 
the course of these proceedings, and the Department has consistently 
rejected these arguments on an equal number of occasions. Moreover, 
according to respondents, this is an issue of no relevance to the 
termination proceeding, as long as the producer/exporters complied with 
the terms of the suspension agreements.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. The Department 
has repeatedly determined that FINAGRO is a major intermediary lender 
to the agricultural sector, and therefore is an appropriate alternative 
basis for the Department's benchmarks. See Roses and Other Cut Flowers 
from Colombia; Miniature Carnations From Colombia; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews of Suspended Investigations, 
1993 Review (Comment 8), 61 FR 9429, 9433, (March 8, 1996); Roses and 
Other Cut Flowers from Colombia; Miniature Carnations from Colombia; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews of 
Suspended Investigations (1991-2 Review) (Comments 6 and 7), 60 FR 
42539, 42542 (August 16, 1995); and Miniature Carnations from Colombia; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not To Terminate Suspended Investigation (Comment 8), 59 
FR 10790, 10794-95 (March 8, 1994). In this review we examined 
potential alternative benchmarks and continued to find that FINAGRO was 
the most appropriate alternative source of financing to the 
agricultural sector.
    Finally, we note that by terminating these suspension agreements, 
any issue regarding the establishment of prospective benchmarks for 
these cases is moot.
    Comment 6: The FTC asserts that the Department had inadequate 
evidence concerning whether signatories are likely to apply for or 
receive any net subsidy on the merchandise. The FTC argues that the 
Department relied on GOC certifications that were substantially the 
same as the

[[Page 45945]]

commitments made under the suspension agreements. Furthermore, 
petitioner claims that the GOC still maintains BANCOLDEX benefits and 
the CERT program. The FTC cites the Statement of Administrative Action 
(``SAA'') accompanying the URAA as stipulating that, ``as long as a 
subsidy program continues to exist, Commerce will not consider company- 
or industry-specific renunciations of countervailable subsidies, by 
themselves, as an indication that continuation or recurrence of 
countervailable subsidies is unlikely.''
    Respondents argue that the certifications supplied to the 
Department exceed both the requirements of the Department's regulations 
and the terms of the suspension agreements. Second, respondents claim 
that abolition of programs (such as the BANCOLDEX program) is not 
required for termination for non-use, and that the FTC has failed to 
point out that the GOC has eliminated countervailable benefits by 
eliminating preferential rates to flower producers/exporters under the 
BANCOLDEX program. Third, respondents note that the Department has 
found that the CERT program has been abolished for flower exports to 
the United States since ``at least'' 1988. In conclusion, respondents 
claim that the FTC's reliance on the SAA is ill-conceived, because the 
Department has relied on more than simply company-specific 
renunciations: in fact, for the most part, the subsidy programs at 
issue no longer exist for flower producers/exporters; the Department 
has the aforementioned certifications from the GOC; and finally, there 
is a record of ``7-11 years'' compliance with the suspension 
agreements.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. With regard to 
CERT, flower producers/exporters are prohibited by Colombian law from 
receiving CERT rebates on exports to the United States and Puerto Rico. 
With regard to BANCOLDEX loans for the period 1990-94, flower 
producers/exporters have been prohibited by the terms of various GOC 
resolutions from receiving loans at countervailable rates, and have 
been unable to obtain loans at rates below the Department's benchmarks 
pursuant to Colombian law and BANCOLDEX instructions to refinancers of 
BANCOLDEX loans. Furthermore, the GOC has certified that it will not 
confer any loans constituting countervailable subsidies on flower 
producers/exporters. Finally, the record of compliance with the terms 
of these suspension agreements over the period 1990-94, together with 
the actions described above, indicates that continuation or recurrence 
of countervailable subsidies is unlikely.

Final Results of Reviews

    After considering all of the comments received, we determine that 
the GOC and the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise have 
complied with all the terms of the suspension agreements during the 
period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994. We determine that no 
countervailable benefits have been bestowed on subject merchandise, and 
furthermore, that producers/exporters of subject merchandise have not 
used the above programs for at least five years (or, in the case of 
programs only recently created, for the life of the program). 
Additionally, we note that the GOC has stated for the record that it 
will institute or maintain appropriate measures to ensure that export 
loan programs will be administered to guarantee that loans granted to 
recipients are comparable to commercial loans that a flower producer/
exporter could obtain in the market, such as those alternative sources 
of financing available to agriculture in Colombia, and will not confer 
any loan program countervailable subsidies on flower producers/
exporters. Furthermore, the GOC has certified that, for the subject 
merchandise, it shall not reinstate those programs which the Department 
has found countervailable, and it shall not substitute other 
countervailable programs. Finally, producers/exporters have certified 
that they will not apply for or receive any net subsidy on exports to 
the United States of subject merchandise from those programs that the 
Department has found countervailable in any proceeding involving 
Colombia or from other countervailable programs.
    Therefore, we determine that the GOC and the producers/exporters 
covered by these agreements have met the requirements for termination 
of the suspended countervailing duty investigations on roses and other 
cut flowers and miniature carnations, as required by 19 CFR 355.25. We, 
therefore, determine to terminate the suspended investigation on roses 
and other cut flowers from Colombia and the suspended investigation on 
miniature carnations from Colombia.
    Lastly, as a result of this determination, we will also terminate 
the reviews in progress for these agreements covering the 1995 period.
    These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)(C) and 
1675(c)) and 19 CFR 355.22 and 355.25.

    Dated: August 26, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-22235 Filed 8-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P