[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7125-7127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3617]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-357-404]


Certain Textile Mill Products From Argentina; Initiation and 
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty 
Review, Consideration of Revocation of Order, and Intent to Revoke 
Order

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

ACTION: Notice of initiation and preliminary results of changed 
circumstances countervailing duty review, consideration of revocation 
of order, and intent to revoke order.

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

SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996, the Department of Commerce initiated changed 
circumstances reviews of the countervailing duty orders on Leather from 
Argentina (55 FR 40212), Wool from Argentina (48 FR 14423), Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina (49 FR 46564), and Carbon Steel Cold-
Rolled Flat Products from Argentina (49 FR 18006). The Department of 
Commerce initiated these reviews in order to determine whether, in 
light of the decision in Ceramica Regiomontana v. United States, 64 
F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the agency had the authority to 
assess countervailing duties on entries of merchandise covered by these 
orders occurring after September 20, 1991--the date on which Argentina 
became a ``country under the Agreement'' within the meaning of former 
section 303(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) (19 
U.S.C. 1303(a)(1) (1988; repealed 1994)). In the final results of these 
reviews, the Department of Commerce determined that, based upon the 
ruling in the Ceramica case, it lacked the authority to assess 
countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of merchandise covered by 
the four Argentine orders occurring on or after September 20, 1991. 
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Reviews and 
Revocation and Amended Revocation of Countervailing Duty Orders, (62 FR 
41361).
    As a result of the Ceramica Regiomontana v. United States decision 
and the changed circumstances reviews, the Department of Commerce is 
initiating a changed circumstances review of the countervailing duty 
order on Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina (50 FR 9846) and 
preliminarily determining that it does not have the authority to assess 
countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of merchandise covered by 
the order occurring on or after September 20, 1991. Therefore, we 
intend to revoke this order with respect to all unliquidated entries of 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption during the period May 18, 1992 through December 31, 1994. 
(The order has been revoked on two previous occasions. For a further 
discussion of these revocations and the resulting period affected by 
this preliminary determination, see the Supplementary Information 
section below). We invite interested parties to comment on this notice 
of initiation and preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne D'Alauro or Kelly Parkhill, 
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:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Act by the URAA. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the current regulations published in the Federal Register on May 19, 
1997 (62 FR 27296).

History of the Countervailing Duty Order on Textile Mill Products From 
Argentina

    The countervailing duty order on Certain Textile Mill Products from 
Argentina was issued on March 12, 1985 pursuant to former section 
303(a)(1) of the Act. Under former section 303, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) could assess (or ``levy'') countervailing 
duties without an injury determination on two types of imports: (i) 
Dutiable merchandise from countries that were not signatories of the 
1979 Subsidies Code or ``substantially equivalent'' agreements 
(otherwise known as ``countries under the Agreement''), and (ii) duty-
free merchandise from countries that were not signatories of the 1947 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. See S. Rep. 249, 96th Cong. 1st 
Sess. 103-06 (1979); H. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 43, 49-50 
(1979). At the time this order was issued, textile mill products from 
Argentina were dutiable. Also at that time, Argentina was not a 
``country under the Agreement.'' In short, U.S. law did not require an 
injury determination as a prerequisite to the issuance of the order, 
and none was provided.
    On August 13, 1990, the Department revoked the countervailing duty 
order on Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina pursuant to 
Sec. 355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the Department's then-current regulations. 
See Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina (55 FR 32940). The 
Department's decision to revoke the order was challenged before the 
U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On March 24, 1992, the CIT 
reversed the Department's decision, holding that a domestic interested 
party had properly objected to the Department's intent to revoke the 
countervailing duty order. See Belton Industries Inc. v. United States, 
CIT Slip Op. 92-39 (March 24, 1992). In accordance with that decision, 
on May 7, 1992, the CIT ordered the Department to rescind the 
revocation and reinstate the countervailing duty order on certain 
textile mill products from Argentina. Subsequently, two related appeals 
were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 
Belton Industries, Inc. v. United States, et al., CAFC Nos. 92-1419, -
1421, and -1451, and Belton Industries, Inc. v. United States, et al., 
CAFC Nos. 92-1452, and -1483. Because the United States withdrew its 
appeal (No. 92-1421), and Argentina was not a party to the appeals, the 
CIT decision became final and binding with respect to the order on 
certain textile mill products from Argentina. Consequently, the 
Department rescinded its revocation of the countervailing duty order on 
certain textile mill products from Argentina and reinstated the order 
on November 18, 1992, effective May 18, 1992. See Certain Textile Mill 
Products from Argentina; Notice of Final Court Decision and Rescission 
of Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order (57 FR 54368).
    On March 1, 1994, the Department again published in the Federal 
Register (59 FR 9727) its intent to revoke the countervailing duty 
order on certain textile mill products from Argentina pursuant to 19 
CFR 355.25(d)(4)(i)(1994) because no interested party had requested an 
administrative review for at least four consecutive review periods. The 
Department received a timely objection to the intended revocation

[[Page 7126]]

from the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) and its member 
companies as well as the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union 
(ACTWU).
    The Department requested clarifying information from ATMI and ACTWU 
regarding the like products their members produced. The Department 
determined that ATMI and ACTWU did not qualify as interested parties 
with respect to one like product category, ``Other Miscellaneous 
Categories.'' Therefore, the Department revoked the order with respect 
to that like product. See Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina; 
Determination to Amend Revocation, in Part, of the Countervailing Duty 
Order (62 FR 41365).
    As explained above, the countervailing duty order on certain 
textile mill products from Argentina was issued pursuant to former 
section 303. In the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (URAA), which 
amended the Act, section 303 was repealed in part because the new 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures prohibits the 
assessment of countervailing duties on imports from a member of the 
World Trade Organization without an affirmative injury determination. 
The URAA added section 753 to the Act, which provided domestic 
interested parties with an opportunity to request an injury 
investigation for orders that had been issued pursuant to former 
section 303.
    Because no domestic interested parties exercised their right under 
section 753(a) of the Act to request an injury investigation on certain 
textile mill products from Argentina, 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 40,568).

The Ceramica Regiomontana v. United States (Ceramica) Decision

    On September 6, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (Federal Circuit) held, in a case involving imports of dutiable 
ceramic tile from Mexico, that once Mexico became a ``country under the 
Agreement'' on April 23, 1985 pursuant to the Understanding between the 
United States and Mexico Regarding Subsidies and Countervailing Duties 
(the Mexican MOU), the Department could not assess countervailing 
duties on tile from that country under former section 303(a)(1) of the 
Act. Ceramica, 64 F.3d at 1582. ``After Mexico became a `country under 
the Agreement,' the only provision under which ITA could continue to 
impose countervailing duties was section 1671.'' Id. One of the 
prerequisites to the assessment of countervailing duties under 19 
U.S.C. 1671 (1988), according to the Federal Circuit, is an affirmative 
injury determination. See also Id. at section 1671e. However, at the 
time the countervailing duty order on ceramic tile was issued, the 
requirement of an affirmative injury determination under U.S. law was 
not applicable. Therefore, the Federal Circuit looked to see whether 
the statute contained any transition rules when Mexico became a country 
under the Agreement which might provide the order on tile with the 
required injury test. Specifically, the court looked at section 104(b) 
of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Public Law 96-39 (July 20, 1979) 
(1979 Act).
    Section 104(b) was designed to provide an injury test for certain 
countervailing duty orders issued under former section 303 prior to the 
effective date of the 1979 Act (which established Title VII and, in 
particular, section 701 of the Act). However, in order to induce other 
countries to accede to the 1979 Subsidies Code (or substantially 
equivalent agreements), the window of opportunity was intentionally 
limited. In order to qualify (i) the exporting nation had to be a 
country under the Agreement (e.g., a signatory of the Subsidies Code) 
by January 1, 1980, (ii) the order had to be in existence on January 1, 
1980 (i.e., the effective date of Title VII), and (iii) the exporting 
country (or in some instances its exporters) had to request the injury 
test on or before January 2, 1983.
    In Ceramica, the countervailing duty order on ceramic tile was 
issued in 1982 and Mexico did not become a country under the Agreement 
until April 23, 1985. Therefore, in the absence of an injury test and 
the statutory means (under section 104 or some other provision) to 
provide an injury test, the Federal Circuit held that the Department 
could not assess countervailing duties on ceramic tile and would have 
to revoke the order effective April 23, 1985 (i.e., the date Mexico 
became a ``country under the Agreement''). Ceramica, 64 F.3d at 1583.
    On September 20, 1991, the United States and Argentina signed the 
Understanding Between the United States of America and the Republic of 
Argentina Regarding Subsidies and Countervailing Duties (Argentine 
MOU). Section III of that agreement contains provisions substantially 
equivalent to the provisions in the Mexican MOU that were before the 
Federal Circuit in the Ceramica case. Therefore, on April 2, 1996, the 
Department initiated changed circumstances reviews of the 
countervailing duty orders on Leather from Argentina (55 FR 40212), 
Wool from Argentina (48 FR 14423), Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
Argentina (49 FR 46564), and Carbon Steel Cold-Rolled Flat Products 
from Argentina (49 FR 18006). Each of these orders had been issued 
without an injury determination. The purpose of these reviews was to 
determine whether the Department had the authority, in light of the 
Ceramica decision, to assess countervailing duties on entries of 
merchandise covered by the orders occurring on or after September 20, 
1991--the date on which Argentina became a ``country under the 
Agreement'' within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1303(a)(1) (1988; repealed 
1994). The Department has now completed these reviews. In the Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty Reviews and 
Revocation and Amended Revocation of Countervailing Duty Orders, (62 FR 
41361) (Argentine Changed Circumstances), published in the Federal 
Register on August 1, 1997, the Department determined that, based upon 
the ruling in the Ceramica case, it lacked the authority to assess 
countervailing duties on entries of merchandise covered by the four 
Argentine orders occurring on or after September 20, 1991.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain textile 
mill products from Argentina. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTS) item numbers covered by the order are identified in 
Attachment A of this notice.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances 
Countervailing Duty Review, Consideration of Revocation of Order, and 
Intent to Revoke Order

    Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, the Department may revoke a 
countervailing duty order based on a review under section 751(b) of the 
Act (i.e., a changed circumstances review). The Department's 
regulations at 19 CFR 351.216(d) require that the Department conduct a 
changed circumstances review in accordance with Sec. 351.221, if it 
determines that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review 
exist. In addition, Sec. 351.221(c)(3)(ii) allows the Department to 
combine the notice of initiation of the review and the

[[Page 7127]]

preliminary results of review if it determines that expedited action is 
warranted.
    In accordance with Secs. 751(b)(1) and 751(d) of the Act, and 
Secs. 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of the Department's regulations, we are 
initiating this changed circumstances review. We have further 
determined that expedited action is warranted and are, therefore, 
combining the notices of initiation and preliminary results. Based upon 
our analysis of the Ceramica decision and the Argentine Changed 
Circumstances reviews, we have preliminarily determined that the order 
on Certain Textile Mill Products from Argentina became entitled to an 
injury test as of September 20, 1991--the date on which Argentina 
became a ``country under the Agreement'' within the meaning of 19 
U.S.C. 1303(a)(1) (1988; repealed 1994). Furthermore, in the absence of 
an injury determination or the statutory authority to provide an injury 
test, the Department does not have the authority to assess 
countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of certain textile mill 
products from Argentina occurring on or after September 20, 1991. As a 
result, we intend to revoke this order with respect to all unliquidated 
entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption during the period May 18, 1992 (the date on which the 
order was reinstated pursuant to the Belton decision) through December 
31, 1994. The Department has previously revoked the countervailing duty 
order on textile mill products from Argentina for all entries occurring 
on or after January 1, 1995. See Revocation of Countervailing Duty 
Orders (60 FR 40568).
    If our final results remain unchanged, the revocation will apply to 
all unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption during the period May 18, 1992 (the 
date on which the Department reinstated the order pursuant to the 
Belton decision) through December 31, 1994.
    Therefore, we intend to instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
liquidate all unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 18, 1992, 
and on or before December 31, 1994, without regard to countervailing 
duties. We also intend to instruct the U.S. Customs to refund with 
interest any estimated countervailing duties collected with respect to 
those unliquidated entries.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may request a hearing not later than 30 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may 
submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, may be submitted five 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 two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal 
briefs. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on 
interested parties. The Department will publish the final results of 
this changed circumstances review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of 
the Act (19 U.S.C. section 1675(b)(1)).

    Dated: February 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix A (C-357-404)--HTS List for Certain Textile Mill Products From 
Argentina

HTS Numbers

5111.1170, 5111.1960,1 5111.2090, 5111.3090, 5111.9090, 
5112.1120, 5112.1990, 5112.2030, 5112.3030, 5112.9090, 5205.1110, 
5205.1210, 5205.1310, 5205.1410, 5205.2400,2 5205.3100, 
5205.3200, 5205.3300, 5207.1000, 5207.9000, 5407.9105, 5407.9205, 
5407.9305, 5407.9405, 5515.1305, 5515.1310, 5801.3600, 6302.600010, 
6302.600020, 6302.910005, 6302.910050, 6305.2000, 6305.9000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Coverage limited to fabric, value not over $19.84/kg.
    \2\ Coverage limited to yarn, not exceeding 68 nm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-3617 Filed 2-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P