[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46475-46479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23371]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-549-401]
Certain Apparel From Thailand: 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 (CVD) order on certain
apparel from Thailand. We preliminarily determine the net bounty or
grant to be that described in the ``Preliminary Results of Review''
section. 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: September 3, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Kathleen Lockard,
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, 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 March 12, 1985, the Department published the Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order;
Certain Apparel from Thailand (50 FR 9819) (Certain Apparel). On March
13, 1992, the Department published a Notice of Intent to Revoke
Countervailing Duty Orders (57 FR 8860). We received a timely objection
to the Department's intended revocation and a request for an
administrative review of the review period January 1, 1991, through
December 31, 1991, from the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union (ACTWU). The review was initiated on April 13, 1992. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews (57 FR 12797).
Subsequently, the Royal Thai Government (RTG) filed comments on the
ACTWU's objection to the revocation of the order, claiming that the
ACTWU lacked standing under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(9)(D) to object to
revocation on a number of the like products covered by the CVD
order.\1\ On July 19, 1996, the Department preliminarily determined
that the ACTWU had standing for 57 of the 87
[[Page 46476]]
apparel like products covered by the CVD order. On January 3, 1997, the
Department published a Notice of Determination to Amend Revocation, in
Part, of Countervailing Duty Order (62 FR 392) which amended the
effective date of the revocation of the CVD order on certain apparel
from Thailand from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 1991, with respect to
the 30 like products for which the ACTWU was found not to have
standing. In that notice, we also stated that we would continue the
administrative review of the remaining products for which the ACTWU was
found to have standing, covering the period January 1 through December
31, 1991. This review now covers the products identified in the Scope
of Review section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On May 26, 1995, the Department published Opportunity to
Request a Section 753 Injury Investigation (60 FR 27693). Because no
domestic interested parties exercised their right under section
753(a) of the Act, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(``URAA''), to request an injury investigation, the International
Trade Commission made a negative injury determination with respect
to this order, pursuant to section 753(b)(4) of the Act. As a
result, the Department revoked this countervailing duty order,
effective January 1, 1995, pursuant to section 753(b)(3)(B) of the
Act. See Revocation of Countervailing Duty Orders (60 FR 40568,
August 9, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are certain apparel from Thailand.
Such merchandise is described in detail in the Appendix to this notice.
Best Information Available (BIA)
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.'' 19 U.S.C.
Sec. 1677e(c)(1988); see also 19 CFR Sec. 355.37(1994). In determining
what rate to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-tiered
methodology. The Department assigns lower BIA rates to those
respondents who cooperated in an administrative review (tier two) and
rates based on more adverse assumptions for respondents who did not
cooperate in the review, or who significantly impeded the proceeding
(tier one). See Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F 2d.
1185, 1191-92 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(Allied-Signal).
In this review, Mahboonkrong Trading Co., Ltd., UMC International
Co., Ltd., and Agason (Thailand), Ltd. did not provide responses to the
Department's questionnaire. However, in its response, the RTG certified
that these companies have ceased operations, and, where available, the
RTG provided information from government records on their behalf. The
RTG's response indicates that these companies had gone out of business
prior to the time when the Department forwarded the questionnaire for
this review. Pursuant to the Department's practice, we assign second-
tier BIA to companies which have gone out of business and therefore are
unable to respond to the Department's questionnaires. See, e.g.,
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of Order (In Part) (56
FR 15159, 15173, March 31, 1994). Therefore, in accordance with section
776 of the Act and Allied-Signal, we are using a second-tier BIA rate
for these companies based on the highest program rates calculated for
responding companies.
In certain instances, individual companies had no longer retained
detailed information on the use of programs. The RTG provided
information from government records on behalf of these companies. To
the extent that the government information was sufficient, we used this
information in our calculations. If the government information was
insufficient, in accordance with section 776 of the Act and Allied-
Signal, we used a second-tier BIA rate for individual programs based on
the highest rate found for responding companies who used that program
during this review. One program, the Investment Promotion Act (IPA),
provides for several different types of benefits. The responding
companies all certified that they did not use any benefits under the
IPA during the period of review, except for two companies which
reported receiving benefits under Section 28 of the IPA. In addition,
the RTG reported that one non-responding company was eligible for
benefits under Section 36(4) of the IPA, but the RTG did not provide
information as to whether the company received benefits under this
provision. Therefore, because no IPA benefits were found to have been
used in the original countervailing duty investigation and because
Section 36(4) was not used by a responding company, we are basing BIA
on the IPA program rate calculated for the 1994 administrative review
of the countervailing duty order on certain ball bearings from
Thailand, Certain Ball Bearings from Thailand: Notice of Final Results
of Administrative Review (62 FR 728, January 6, 1997), which is the
only proceeding in which benefits under which Section 36(4) of the IPA
were examined.
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
In accordance with section 706 of the Act and Ceramica
Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 431, 439 (CIT 1994),
we calculated the net bounty or grant on a country-wide basis by first
calculating the rate for each company subject to the administrative
review. We then weighted the rate received by each company by its share
of total Thai exports to the United States of subject merchandise
examined, including all companies, even those with de minimis rates and
rates based on BIA. We then summed the individual companies' weighted
rates to determine the country-wide, weighted-average 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, we proceeded to the
next step and examined the net 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). Two companies had significantly different net rates
during the review period. These companies are treated separately for
assessment and cash deposit purposes. All other companies are assigned
the country-wide rate. See ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section,
below.
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Conferring Subsidies
A. Export Packing Credits
Export packing credits (EPCs) are short-term pre-shipment export
loans, provided and recorded on a shipment-by-shipment basis. These
loans are provided through commercial banks for up to 100 percent of
the shipment value, and the Bank of Thailand (BOT) will rediscount up
to 50 percent of the commercial bank loan. Under the ``Regulations of
the Bank of Thailand Re: The Purchasing of Promissory Notes Arising
from Exports'' (B.E. 2531), effective October 1, 1988, the commercial
banks charged the borrower a maximum of 10 percent interest per annum
for the export credit, and the BOT rediscounted these loans at 5
percent interest for large exporters and 4 percent interest for small
exporters. To qualify for the repurchase arrangement, promissory notes
must be supported by a letter of credit, sales contract, purchase
order, or warehouse receipt.
The notes are available for a maximum of 180 days and interest is
payable on the due date of the loan. The
[[Page 46477]]
due date of the promissory note does not fall beyond the expiry date of
the letter of credit, ten days after the delivery date indicated on the
sales contract or purchase order, or the date when the stored goods
were due to be discharged from the warehouse in the case of goods
backed by a warehouse receipt. The loan must be repaid within two days
of shipment, whether or not this occurred before the due date of the
note. In addition, within 60 days of receipt of a packing credit loan,
the exporter must submit a Purchase of Goods Report to the BOT.
If the commercial bank does not meet the terms of the loan, the BOT
charges the commercial bank a penalty, retroactive to the first day of
the loan, at 6.5 percent. If the exporter does not meet the terms of
the loan, the commercial bank passes on to the borrower the additional
6.5 percent penalty charge. If the exporter can prove that shipment of
the goods took place within 60 days after the due date, the penalty is
refunded to the commercial bank by the BOT and the commercial bank
credits the exporter's account. The purpose of the penalty charge is to
ensure that companies are using the EPCs to finance export sales.
In the original investigation, this program was determined to be
countervailable because the loans were provided only to exporters and
they were provided at preferential rates (see Certain Apparel). There
has been no new information or evidence of changed circumstances placed
on the record of this review to warrant reconsideration of this
program's countervailability. For companies for which we have specific
information on EPC usage, we compared the amount of interest paid for
EPCs during the period of review with the amount of interest that would
have been paid at the commercial benchmark rate. As the benchmark, we
used the weighted average of the minimum loan rate (MLR) and the
minimum overdraft rate (MOR) as reported in the Bank of Thailand
Quarterly Bulletin. In Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Steel Wire Rope from
Thailand (56 FR 46299; September 11, 1991), the Department determined
that the MLR and MOR reflected the predominant sources of short term
commercial financing in Thailand. Use of the weighted-average of the
MLR and MOR rates as the benchmark for EPCs was also upheld by the
United States Court of International Trade (CIT). See Royal Thai
Government and TTU Industrial Corp. v United States, 850 F.Supp. 44, 51
(CIT 1994).
For each of the companies for which we have specific information on
EPC usage, we calculated the rate by subtracting the total interest on
EPCs for shipment to the United States that the company actually paid
during the review period from the total amount of interest that would
have been paid at the benchmark rate, and dividing this benefit by the
company's total exports to the United States. For companies for which
we lack specific information on EPC usage, we are assigning as BIA the
highest rate calculated for a responding company as discussed in the
``Best Information Available'' section above. On this basis, we
preliminarily determine the weighted average bounty or grant under this
program to be 0.55 percent ad valorem.
B. Tax Certificates for Exports
The RTG issues, to exporters of record, tax certificates which are
transferrable and which rebate indirect taxes and import duties levied
on inputs used to produce exports. This rebate program is provided for
in the Tax and Duty Compensation of Exported Goods Produced in the
Kingdom Act (Tax and Duty Act).
The Tax Certificate program has two rates. The ``A'' rate rebates
both import duties and indirect domestic taxes and is available to
companies that have not otherwise had duties refunded. The ``B'' rate
rebates only indirect domestic taxes and is claimed by exporters who
have not paid import duties, or who participate in Thailand's customs
duty drawback program or duty exemption program on imported raw
materials, or who do not import raw materials for use in production.
Companies may receive both ``A'' and ``B'' rebates depending on the
merchandise exported. In the original investigation, we determined that
the tax certificate for exporters program meets the standard criteria
for indirect tax rebate programs. This program was determined to be
countervailable because the rebates provided were excessive in that
they were based, in part, on the tax incidences for non-physically
incorporated items. See Certain Apparel.
By announcement AO 4/2533 (1990) (``AO 4/2533''), effective June
11, 1990, MOF adopted physical input coefficient (PHIC) based rebate
rates for the merchandise subject to this review. The PHIC product-
specific methodology was designed to calculate rebate rates which would
not overrebate the import duties and business taxes levied on the
inputs by eliminating rebates on non-physically incorporated inputs and
adjusting the denominator to reflect f.o.b. values. In order to
determine whether these PHIC-based rebate rates are excessive, we first
examined whether all of the inputs included in the various PHIC product
specific calculations were physically incorporated and found that all
of the inputs were indeed physically incorporated inputs. We then
reviewed the formulas used to calculate the tax incidences for the
various inputs. We found that, for domestically-sourced inputs, certain
factors in the formulas were based on ex-factory rather than f.o.b.
values. The tax incidence should be based on f.o.b. value because the
rebate is paid on the f.o.b. value of the exported merchandise.
The RTG provided the conversion factors needed to recalculate tax
incidence on an f.o.b. basis. Using these conversion factors, we
calculated the allowable amounts of tax rebate for the four types of
tax certificate rebates and compared them to the rebate rates that the
RTG actually paid. For product category 61 sales, we calculated
overrebates of 0.04 percent for ``A'' certificates and 0.01 percent for
``B'' certificates. For product category 62 sales, we calculated
overrebates of 0.48 percent for ``A'' certificates and 0.1 percent for
``B'' certificates. For companies for which we have specific
information on receipt of tax certificates during the period of review,
we calculated total benefit by multiplying these overrebate rates by
each company's corresponding values of category 61 ``A'' and ``B'' and
category 62 ``A'' and ``B'' sales and dividing the total of these
benefits by the company's total exports of subject merchandise to the
United States. For companies for which we do not have specific
information on receipt of tax certificates during the period of review,
we are assigning as BIA the category 62 ``A'' rate of 0.48 percent ad
valorem. Based on the above, we preliminarily determine the weighted
average bounty or grant under this program to be 0.31 percent ad
valorem.
C. Electricity Discounts for Exporters
Electricity discounts for exports were terminated effective January
1, 1990. However, because government authorities could defer action on
company applications for up to five years, residual benefits were
possible up to five years after termination of the program. Under this
program, the electricity authorities in Thailand provided discounts of
20 percent of the cost of electricity consumed to produce exports. The
discount was calculated as a credit and deducted from each company's
electric bill.
[[Page 46478]]
In the original investigation, this program was determined to be
countervailable. See Certain Apparel. There has been no new information
or evidence of changed circumstances placed on the record of this
review to warrant reconsideration of this program's countervailability.
For companies for which we have specific information on receipt of
electricity discounts during the period of review, we calculated the
benefit attributable to these residual benefits by dividing the amount
of the electricity discount by the total exports. For companies for
which we do not have specific information on receipt of electricity
discounts during the period of review, we are assigning as BIA the
highest rate calculated for a responding company as discussed in the
``Best Information Available'' section above. On this basis, we
preliminarily determined the net bounty or grant from this program to
be 0.20 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers.
D. Investment Promotion Act (IPA)--Sections 28 and 36(4)
The Investment Promotion Act of 1977 is administered by the Board
of Investment (BOI) and is designed to provide incentives to invest in
Thailand. During the 1985 investigation, none of the IPA programs were
utilized by the companies subject to review. In order to receive IPA
benefits, each company must apply to the BOI for a Certificate of
Promotion (license), which specifies goods to be produced, production
and export requirements, and benefits allowed. These licenses are
granted at the discretion of the BOI and are periodically amended or
reissued to upgrade benefits. Each IPA section for which a company is
eligible must be specifically identified in the license. This program
was determined to be countervailable in previous investigations
involving Thailand. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Partial Countervailing Duty Order: Ball Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Thailand (54 FR 12130, May 3, 1989). There has been
no new information or evidence of changed circumstances placed on the
record of this review to warrant reconsideration of this program's
countervailability.
As discussed above, during the period of review, several companies
were eligible for various IPA benefits; however, reporting companies
received benefits only under Section 28 of the IPA. Under Section 28,
an exporting company is allowed to import machinery and equipment
(fixed assets) free of import duties and business and local taxes. Nan
Yang Knitting Factory Co., Ltd. and Far East Knitting Co., Ltd. are the
only companies subject to the review who received IPA Section 28
benefits. We calculated the Section 28 benefit for each of these
companies by dividing the total amount of taxes and duties exempted
during the review period by the companies' total exports.
In addition, the RTG indicated that several companies were eligible
for benefits under Section 36(4). Under Section 36(4), the company is
allowed a tax deduction equal to 5 percent of the increase in export
earnings over the previous year. No responding company received
benefits under section 36(4). Thai Iryo Public Co., Ltd. was the only
eligible company for which no specific information was provided
regarding the receipt of benefits under this provision of the IPA.
Therefore, we are assigning a BIA rate to Thai Iryo as discussed in the
BIA section above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net
bounty or grant from the IPA program to be 0.07 percent ad valorem for
all the subject merchandise.
II. Programs Preliminarily Found Not to be Used
We examined the following programs and preliminarily find that the
producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for
or receive benefits under these programs during the period of review.
A. Rediscount of Industrial Bills
B. Assistance for Trading Companies
C. IPA (Sections 29, 30, 31, 33, and 36 (1-3))
D. Export Processing Zones
E. Financing from the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand
Preliminary Results of Review
For the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991, we
preliminarily determine the net bounty or grant to be 1.13 percent ad
valorem for all companies except Thai Garment Export Co., Ltd., Fairtex
Garment Co., Ltd., Fang Brothers Holding (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and East
Asia Textile Ind. Co., Ltd., which have de minimis rates.
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 of 1.13 percent ad
valorem for all shipments of the subject merchandise exported on or
after January 1, 1991, and on or before December 31, 1991, for all
producers and exporters except Thai Garment Export Co., Ltd., Fairtex
Garment Co., Ltd., Fang Brothers Holding (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and East
Asia Textile Ind. Co., Ltd.
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department also intends to instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties,
all shipments of the subject merchandise by Thai Garment Export Co.,
Ltd., Fairtex Garment Co., Ltd., Fang Brothers Holding (Thailand) Co.,
Ltd., and East Asia Textile Ind. Co., Ltd. exported on or after January
1, 1991 and on or before December 31, 1991. This is because the
company-specific rates calculated for these companies are less than 0.5
percent ad valorem, which is de minimis.
As noted above, this countervailing duty order was subject to
section 753 of the Act, as amended by the URAA. See Countervailing Duty
Order; Opportunity to Request a Section 753 Injury Investigation (60 FR
27,693, May 26, 1995). Because no domestic interested parties exercised
their right under section 753(a) of the Act to request an injury
investigation, the International Trade Commission made a negative
injury determination with respect to this order, pursuant to section
753(b)(4) of the Act. As a result, the Department revoked this
countervailing duty order, effective January 1, 1995, pursuant to
section 753(b)(3)(B) of the Act. See Revocation of Countervailing Duty
Orders (60 FR 40568, August 9, 1995) and Notice of Determination to
Amend Revocation, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Order (62 FR 392,
January 3, 1997). Accordingly, the Department will not issue further
instructions with respect to cash deposits of estimated countervailing
duties.
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. 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 argument 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 Sec. 355.38(e).
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under
[[Page 46479]]
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 19 CFR
Sec. 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
Sec. 355.22.
Dated: August 27, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix C-549-401--Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Apparel From
Thailand Harmonized Tariff Schedule Numbers
HTS Number and Annotation
6101.2000 Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or
permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6101.3020
6102.1000
6103.1920 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6103.2200 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6103.2300 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6103.2910 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6103.4210 Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or
permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6103.4315 Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or
permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6103.4910 Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or
permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6104.1320
6104.1915
6104.2100.10
6104.2100.30
6104.2100.40
6104.2100.60
6104.2100.80
6104.2200.10
6104.2200.60
6104.2200.80
6104.2200.90
6104.2300.22
6104.2910.60
6104.5100 Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or
permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6104.5310 Coverage limited to wool skirts.
6104.5910 Coverage limited to wool skirts; coverage excludes girls'
skirts or divided skirts not having embroidery or permanently
affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6104.6920 Coverage limited to wool trousers.
6105.1000
6105.2020
6106.1000
6109.1000
6109.9010.07
6109.9010.09
6109.9010.13
6109.9010.25
6109.9010.47
6109.9010.49 Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or
permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6110.2020 Coverage excludes men's or boys' garments having
embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the outer
surface.
6110.3030.05
6110.3030.10
6110.3030.15
6110.3030.20
6110.3030.25
6110.3030.40
6110.3030.50
6111.3040 Coverage limited to sweaters; coverage excludes garments
having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the outer
surface.
6111.3050
6111.9040 Coverage limited to sweaters.
6111.9050
6112.1200.10
6112.1200.30
6112.1200.50
6112.1910.10 Coverage limited to mens' and boy's garments that
would be covered if separately entered.
6112.1910.30 Coverage excludes men's or boys' garments that would
be covered if separately entered.
6112.1910.50 Coverage excludes men's or boys' garments that would
be covered if separately entered.
6112.2010.10 Coverage excludes men's or boys' garments that would
be covered if separately entered.
6112.2010.30 Coverage limited to mens' and boy's garments that
would be covered if separately entered.
6112.2010.50 Coverage excludes men's or boys' garments that would
be covered if separately entered.
6112.2010.60 Coverage excludes men's or boys' garments that would
be covered if separately entered.
6112.2010.80 Coverage limited to mens' and boy's garments that
would be covered if separately entered.
6114.2000
6114.3010.10
6114.3030
6201.1220
6201.1340
6201.9220
6203.1910 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6203.2230 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6203.2300 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6203.2920 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6203.4240
6203.4340
6203.4920
6204.2300 Coverage limited to woolen garments that would be covered
if separately entered.
6204.2920.10
6204.2920.30
6204.2920.40
6204.2920.50 Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if
separately entered.
6205.2020
6208.2200
6208.9200.30
6208.9200.40
6209.2050
[FR Doc. 97-23371 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P