[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52684-52685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-351-406]


Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; 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 July 13, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary results 
of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain 
agricultural tillage tools from Brazil for the period January 1, 1996 
through December 31, 1996 (63 FR 37532). The Department has now 
completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. For information on the net 
subsidy for Marchesan Implementos Agricolas, S.A. (``Marchesan''), the 
reviewed company, and for all non-reviewed companies, please see the 
Final Results of Review section of this notice. We will instruct the 
U.S. Customs Service to liquidate without regard to countervailing 
duties, all shipments of the subject merchandise from Marchesan, as 
detailed in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1998.


[[Page 52685]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, 
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those 
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review 
was specifically requested. On October 31, 1997, Marchesan requested a 
review and revocation from the countervailing duty order. Accordingly, 
this review covers Marchesan. This review also covers the period 
January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 and five programs.
    In the preliminary results, we determined that the company did not 
have the requisite period of zero or de minimis subsidies to justify 
revocation from the countervailing duty order. See Certain Agricultural 
Tillage Tools From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 37533 (July 13, 1998). We invited 
interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. We received 
no comments from any of the parties and our determination that 
Marchesan is not eligible for revocation remains unchanged in these 
final results.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'') effective January 1, 1995 
(``the Act''). The Department is conducting this administrative review 
in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Also, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
provisions codified at 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (62 FR 27296; May 19, 1997).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain round 
shaped agricultural tillage tools (discs) with plain or notched edge, 
such as colters and furrow-opener blades. During the review period, 
such merchandise was classifiable under item numbers 8432.21.00, 
8432.29.00 8432.80.00 and 8432.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(``HTS''). The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Programs

Programs Found to be Not 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:
    A. Accelerated Depreciation for Brazilian-Made Capital Goods;
    B. Preferential Financing for Industrial Enterprises by Banco do 
Brasil (FST and EGF loans);
    C. SUDENE Corporate Income Tax Reduction for Companies Located in 
the Northeast of Brasil;
    D. Preferential Financing under PROEX (formerly under Resolution 68 
and 509 through FINEX);
    E. Preferential Financing under FINEP.
    We did not receive any comments on these programs from the 
interested parties, and our review of the record has not led us to 
change our findings from the preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221, we calculated an individual 
subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this administrative 
review. Since Marchesan did not use any of the countervailable subsidy 
programs during the period of review, we determine the net subsidy for 
Marchesan to be zero percent ad valorem. Accordingly, the Department 
intends to instruct Customs to liquidate, without regard to 
countervailing duties, shipments of the subject merchandise from 
Marchesan exported on or after January 1, 1996, and on or before 
December 31, 1996. Also, the cash deposits required for this company 
will be zero.
    Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for 
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing 
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, 
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as 
provided for in Sec. 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 
351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which 
a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit 
rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected at the rate 
previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate 
applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a 
request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and 
The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and 
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) 
(interpreting 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on 
automatic assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g)). 
Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those 
covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review.
    We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for 
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit 
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this 
order will be the rates for those companies established in the most 
recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. 
If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the 
most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the 
statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments 
is applicable. See Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools from Brazil; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 48692 
(September 20, 1995). This previously established rate shall apply to 
all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this 
rate is requested and completed. In addition, for the period January 1, 
1996 through December 31, 1996, the assessment rates applicable to all 
non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates 
in effect at the time of entry.
    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 CFR 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 issued and published in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: September 24, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-26330 Filed 9-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P