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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-351-406]

Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil; 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 order on certain

agricultural tillage tools from Brazil. We preliminarily determine the

net subsidy to zero percent ad valorem from Marchesan for the period

January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. If the final results remain

the same as these preliminary results of administrative review, we 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, 1995 and on or before

December 31, 1995. Interested parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. (See Public Comment section of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 1997.

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, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

3338 or (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 22, 1985, the Department published in the Federal

Register (57 FR 42743) the countervailing duty order on certain

agricultural tillage tools from Brazil. On October 1, 1996, the

Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review'' (61 FR 51259) of this countervailing duty

order. We received a timely request for review, and we initiated the

review, covering the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995,

on November 15, 1996 (61 FR 58513).

In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a), this review covers only those

producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review

was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers Marchesan

Implementos Agricolas, S.A. (Marchesan). This review also covers five

programs.

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). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department's regulations are to regulations, as amended by the interim

regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR

25130). The Department is conducting this administrative review in

accordance with section 751(a) of 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.

Partial Revocation

On October 30, 1996, Marchesan requested an administrative review

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(a)(2), and partial revocation of the

countervailing duty order with regard to Marchesan pursuant to 19 CFR

355.25. After examining Marchesan's request, the Department determined

that the company did not meet the minimum revocation requirements of

Sec. 355.25(b)(3).

Under 19 CFR 355.25(b)(3), in order to be considered for

revocation, a producer or exporter must have participated in, and been

found to have received no subsidies for, five consecutive review

periods with no intervening review period for which a review was not

conducted. In October 1992, Marchesan requested an administrative

review for 1991. Subsequently, Marchesan withdrew its request and the

Department terminated the administrative review for 1991 (59 FR 56067)

and there was no administrative review in 1992. Therefore, because

Marchesan has participated in only three consecutive administrative

reviews in the past five years, we preliminarily determine that

Marchesan has not satisfied the five consecutive review periods

requirement. In addition, with its request for revocation, a company

must submit both government and company certifications that the company

neither applied for nor received any net subsidy during the period of

review and will not apply for or receive any net subsidy in the future,

as well as the agreement described in 19 CFR 355.25.(a)(3)(iii).

Marchesan did not provide either the government certification or the

company agreement required by the Department's regulations. Therefore,

Marchesan did not meet the threshold requirements for revocation. (See

letter from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of CVD/AD Enforcement

VI, dated December 10, 1996, which is a public document on file in the

Central Records Unit (room B-009 of the Department of Commerce)).

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that

Marchesan did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs

during the period of review:

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. Preferencial Financing under PROEX (formerly under Resolution 68

and 509 through FINEX).

E. Preferencial Financing under FINEP.

Preliminary Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy for Marchesan to be zero

percent ad valorem. 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 liquidate, without regard to countervailing

duties, shipments of the subject merchandise from Marchesan exported on

or after January 1, 1995, and on or before December 31, 1995.

The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect a cash

[[Page 36772]]

deposit of estimated countervailing duties of zero percent ad valorem,

as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, on all shipments of

this merchandise from Marchesan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final

results of this administrative review.

Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor or 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. 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 the most recent company-specific or country-

wide rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all

non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates

is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995, 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.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may request a hearing no 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 355.38.

Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure

of proprietary information under 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 355.38, 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)).

Dated: July 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-17946 Filed 7-8-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M