Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[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 31, 1996, 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, 1994

through December 31, 1994 (61 FR 39949). The Department has now

completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. We determine the net subsidy to

be zero for Marchesan Implementos Agricolas, S.A. (Marchesan). The

Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate, without

regard to countervailing duties, all shipments of the subject

merchandise from Marchesan exported on or after January 1, 1994 and on

or before December 31, 1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement, 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.

[[Page 51682]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to section 355.22(a) of the Department's Interim

Regulations, this review covers only those producers or exporters of

the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested.

See Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Interim regulations; request

for comments, 60 FR 25130, 25139 (May 11, 1995) (``Interim

Regulations''). Accordingly, this review covers Marchesan. This review

also covers the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, and

five programs.

We published the preliminary results on July 31, 1996 (61 FR

39949). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary

results. We received no comments from any of the parties.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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'').

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

Based upon the responses to our questionnaire, and the results of

verification, we determine the following:

I. 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 Brazil

D. Preferential Financing under PROEX (formerly under Resolution 68 and

509 through FINEX)

E. Preferential Financing under FINEP

Since there were no comments submitted by the interested parties,

we have not reconsidered our findings in the preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

In accordance with section 355.22(c)(4)(ii) of the Department's

Interim Regulations, we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each

producer/exporter subject to 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.

As provided for in the Act, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad

valorem in an administrative review is de minimis. Accordingly, the

Department will instruct Customs to liquidate, without regard to

countervailing duties, shipments of the subject merchandise from

Marchesan exported on or after January 1, 1994, and on or before

December 31, 1994. Also, the cash deposits required for this company

will be zero. This cash deposit rate shall be effective upon

publication of this notice in accordance with Sec. 355.22(c)(8) of the

Department's Interim Regulations. Further, this deposit rate, when

imposed shall remain in effect until publication of the final results

of the next administrative review.

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 section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review

will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See

section 355.22(a) of the Interim Regulations. Pursuant to 19 CFR

355.22(g), 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 CFR

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 zero. This rate shall apply to all non-

reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is

requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1994 through December

31, 1994, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies

covered by this order is zero, the cash deposit rate 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 in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: September 27, 1996.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-25412 Filed 10-2-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P