Certain Apparel From Thailand; Determination to Amend Revocation, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Order

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[C-549-401]

Certain Apparel From Thailand; Determination to Amend Revocation,

in Part, of Countervailing Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination to amend revocation, in part, of

countervailing duty order.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined to

amend the effective date of the revocation of the countervailing duty

order on Certain Apparel from Thailand, with respect to the products

classified under the item numbers of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) listed in Appendix D to this notice, from January 1, 1995 to

January 1, 1991. In addition, the Department has determined not to

amend the effective date of revocation with respect to the products

classified under the HTS item numbers listed in Appendix B to this

notice. As a result of this determination not to amend the effective

date of revocation, we will now complete the administrative review of

the countervailing duty order, covering the period January 1, 1991

through December 31, 1991, with respect to the Appendix B items.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein or Robert Copyak,

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

During the original certain textile products and certain apparel

investigations from various countries, including Thailand, the

Department reviewed issues concerning the standing of petitioners with

respect to apparel and explained its determinations in Final Negative

Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Textile Mill Products and

Apparel from Malaysia (50 FR 9852; March 12, 1985) (Malaysia Final

Determination). No injury investigations were required for the

countries involved, and the Department relied upon a list of 86 like

products both for determining the standing of petitioners and for

establishing the corresponding scope of the certain apparel order. See

Letter from Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Dec. 3, 1984, Annex 3, on file

in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099, Department of Commerce (CRU).

With respect to the investigation on certain apparel, the

Department determined that the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers

Union (ACTWU) was an interested party with respect to 52 of the 86

apparel like products covered by the petition. The Department also

determined that the standing requirement for the remaining apparel

products covered by the petition was satisfied by the International

Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU). Together, these petitioners had

filed the petition ``on behalf'' of the apparel industry.

On March 13, 1992, the Department announced its intent to revoke

the countervailing duty order on certain apparel from Thailand pursuant

to section 355.25(d)(4)(i) of the Department's regulations because no

interested party had requested an administrative review for at least

four consecutive review periods. Notice of Intent to Revoke

Countervailing Duty Orders, 57 FR 8860 (March 13, 1992) (Intent to

Revoke Notice). Pursuant to the Department's regulations, if no

interested party objects to the Department's intended revocation or

requests an administrative review of the countervailing duty order, the

Department will revoke the order. 19 CFR Sec. 355.25(d)(4)(iii)(1993).

On March 16, 1992, ACTWU objected to the intended revocation and

requested an administrative review, covering the period January 1, 1991

through December 31, 1991. The review was initiated on April 13, 1992.

Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 57 FR 12797 (April 13, 1992). On April 24, 1992, the Royal

Thai Government (RTG) challenged the standing of ACTWU to object to the

Department's intended revocation and to request an administrative

review. The RTG argued that, to the extent that ACTWU lacked standing

with respect to any of the many like products covered by the order, the

Department should revoke the countervailing duty order with respect to

those products and conduct the administrative review of only the

merchandise which remained in the scope of the order. On June 19, 1996,

the Department issued its preliminary findings with respect to the

standing of ACTWU. See Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman to Paul L.

Joffe, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, June 19,

1996 (Analysis Memorandum). Comments on the Department's preliminary

findings were filed by the RTG. The Department's final determinations

with respect to this issue are fully discussed in the sections

Interested Party Status of ACTWU and Analysis of Comments, below.

Revocation Under Section 753 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

This countervailing duty order was revoked effective January 1,

1995, pursuant to section 753 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (60 FR 40568). The Department is

conducting an administrative review only to determine the appropriate

assessment rate for entries made during the period January 1, 1991

through December 31, 1991.

Scope Conversion

The scope of the certain apparel order was originally defined in

terms of the item numbers listed under the Tariff Schedule of the

United States Annotated (TSUSA). See Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Apparel from

Thailand (50 FR 9819; March 12, 1985) (Thailand Final Determination).

On January 1, 1989, the United States fully converted from TSUSA to the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). At that time, the Customs Service

prepared a list which included all of the HTS numbers necessary to

cover the items previously identified by the TSUSA. However, because

the two tariff schedules use different classification systems which do

not produce a one-to-one product correlation, this list also included

some items not included in the like product list relied upon by the

Department in the investigation. On July 26, 1993, the Department

published Certain Apparel; Notice of Proposed Scope Amendment (58 FR

39789), which contained the proposed HTS scope and invited comments.

The conversion became final on May 17, 1994, with the publication of

Certain Apparel from Thailand; Scope Amendment (59 FR 25699) (Scope

Notice), in which the comments submitted were addressed. The analysis

undertaken as a result of the RTG's challenge of ACTWU's standing is

based on the item numbers of the HTS listed in the Scope Notice; these

HTS item numbers have now been separated into those for which we

determine that ACTWU has standing (Appendix B) and those for which we

determine ACTWU does not have standing (Appendix D).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department has made this determination in accordance with

sections 751 (a) and (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

[[Page 393]]

statute and to Department's regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994.

Interested Party Status of ACTWU

In April 1992, the RTG challenged the standing of ACTWU both to

object to the Department's intended revocation and to request an

administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain

apparel from Thailand. The RTG argued that, to the extent ACTWU lacked

standing with respect to any of the many like products covered by the

order, the Department should revoke the order with respect to those

products and conduct the administrative review of only the merchandise

which remained in the scope of the order. The RTG cited to the original

investigation, noting that ACTWU was found to have standing for only 52

of the 86 like products investigated (standing for the remaining like

products was satisfied by co-petitioners). Furthermore, the RTG noted

that declining union membership had been documented in the course of

the investigation. Thus, the RTG urged the Department to examine anew

whether ACTWU had standing with respect to all of the like products

covered by the order.

During the 1985 countervailing duty investigations of apparel and

textile mill products, which involved many countries, including

Thailand and Malaysia, the Department determined that ACTWU was an

interested party with respect to 52 of the original 86 apparel like

products covered by the petition. Final Negative Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Textile Mill Products and Apparel from Malaysia,

50 FR 9852 (March 12, 1985) (Malaysia Final Determination). The

Department determined that the standing requirement for the remaining

apparel products covered by the petition was satisfied by the

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU). Together, these

petitioners had filed the petition ``on behalf of'' the apparel

industry and had standing with respect to the 86 apparel like products

at issue. Id. at 9854; Thailand Final Determination.

The RTG contested ACTWU's standing as an interested party after the

objection by ACTWU to the Department's intent to revoke the order. The

Department determined, based on information collected in the course of

this proceeding, that there was no basis to reexamine ACTWU's standing

for the 52 like products for which it was found to have standing during

the investigation. See Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Director,

Office of Countervailing Compliance to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, on the Interested Party

Status of a Domestic Interested Party With Respect to the

Countervailing Duty Order on Apparel from Thailand, October 14, 1992

(October 1992 Memorandum), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-

099, Department of Commerce (CRU).

The Department examined ACTWU's status as an interested party,

within the meaning of section 771(9)(D) of the Act, with respect the 34

remaining like products covered by this order. See Analysis Memorandum.

The Department asked ACTWU to indicate which of these products were

produced by its members.1 Regarding unions, section 771(9)(D)

defines ``interested party'' as ``a certified union or recognized union

or group of workers which is representative of an industry engaged in

the manufacture, production or wholesale in the United States of a like

product. . . .''

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

\1\ An 87th like product, flatbags, handbags and luggage, was

subject to investigation and was classified as within the scope of

the apparel order when certain textile mill products and certain

apparel were separated into two countervailing duty orders. There is

no information in the record which indicates that ACTWU had standing

with respect to this product.

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

After examining the information provided by ACTWU, and considering

the arguments submitted by the RTG over the course of this proceeding,

the Department issued its preliminary findings on June 19, 1996. See

Analysis Memorandum. Of the remaining 34 like products, the Department

determined that ACTWU had standing as an interested party with respect

to five. Combined with the 52 like products for which ACTWU was found

to have standing during the investigations (see Malaysia Final

Determination), the total number of like products for which ACTWU was

found to have standing is 57. The Department invited comments on this

determination. We address the RTG's arguments in the Analysis of

Comments section below. No other party submitted comments.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: The RTG argues that the Department's determination that

ACTWU has standing with respect to 57 like products is based upon a

legal standard that is contrary to the plain language of the statute.

The RTG cites section 355.2(i)(4) of the Department's regulations,

which specifies that to be an interested party, a union must be

``representative of the industry or of sellers (other than retailers)

in the United States of the like product produced in the United

States.'' The RTG also cites section 771(4)(D) of the Act, which

defines ``industry'' as ``the domestic producers as a whole of a like

product, or those producers whose collective output of the like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that

product * * *.'' The RTG concludes that in order to be representative

of those producers whose collective output represents a major

proportion of total domestic production of the like product, a union

must demonstrate that it represents workers in each facility included

in such a determination.

The RTG argues that it is inappropriate for the Department to

presume that a union is representative of an industry producing the

like product when it represents only one or a small number of the

workers in that industry. Had Congress intended such a result, the RTG

argues, it would not have required that a union be ``representative of

an industry'' (which clearly encompasses more than just one worker or

more than just one enterprise); rather, Congress would simply have

required the union to be representative of a ``producer'' of the ``like

product.''

In conclusion, the RTG notes that ACTWU, like all unions, is

engaged in efforts to increase its membership by enrolling workers at

factories that are not yet unionized; if ACTWU has not succeeded in

enrolling workers at companies whose collective output represents a

major proportion of total domestic production of a particular like

product, then, the RTG argues, the union cannot simply be deemed

representative of the industry producing that product. The RTG urges

the Department to arrive at an interpretation of the statute that gives

full meaning to the term ``industry'' in the specifications of the

standing requirements for unions.

Department's Position: We disagree with the RTG's assertion that we

applied the incorrect legal standard to determine whether ACTWU is an

interested party, and we continue to find that ACTWU has standing to

object to revocation and request an administrative review for each of

the like products for which the union ultimately claimed interested

party status, in accordance with section 355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the

Department's regulations.

The RTG correctly notes that to qualify as an interested party

pursuant to section 771(9)(D) of the Act, a union must be

``representative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production,

or wholesale in the United States of a like product.'' However, the RTG

incorrectly links this requirement

[[Page 394]]

directly to the definition of the term ``industry'' under section

771(4)(A). The RTG concludes that, to meet this requirement, a union

must at least demonstrate that it represents workers in each facility

producing the like product. We disagree. Such a narrow interpretation

of the phrase ``representative of an industry'' would unduly limit the

rights of a union to qualify as an interested party, object to

revocation, and otherwise participate in a proceeding.

Section 771(9) of the Act defines several categories of domestic

interested parties. In each case, the key to qualifying is for the

party to manufacture, produce or wholesale the like product in the

United States. For instance, under section 771(9)(C), to qualify as a

``manufacturer or producer'' of the like product, the Court of

International Trade has held that a party must actually manufacture the

product in the United States. See Brother Indus. (USA) v. United

States, 801 F. Supp. 751, 757 (CIT 1992).

However, the language of the legislative history describing the

standing requirements ``is broad and unqualified.'' Id. (citing S. Rep.

No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90 (1979)). Where Congress intended to

further limit a party's ability to qualify as an interested party,

Congress made that intention explicit. In particular, sections 771(9)

(E) and (F) explicitly limit the rights of a trade or business

association in just this manner. The legislative history explains:

The provision also provides that a trade or business association

may be considered an interested party only when a majority of its

members are importers of merchandise under investigation, or

manufacture, produce, or wholesale a like product, as the case may

be. This limitation is believed to fairly delimit those groups with

sufficient interest to always be considered interested parties. An

association representative of importers generally, or business

generally, would not be considered an interested party under this

limitation, although a sub-group of such an association may qualify.

S. Rep. No. 249, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 90 (1979). By contrast, with

regard to section 771(9)(D), the legislative history states that the

provision ``clarifies that a union may file a petition and participate

in proceedings under Title VII as added by the bill. The union or group

of workers must represent workers in the relevant U.S. industry.'' Id.

Congress gave no indication that by requiring a union to be

``representative of an industry,'' it intended to limit the rights of

unions which ``represent workers in the relevant U.S. industry'' to

participate in proceedings as interested parties. The legislative

history makes clear that Congress intended unions which represent

workers in the relevant U.S. industry to be ``representative'' of the

industry. For these reasons, we find that the phrase ``representative

of an industry'' requires no more than that a union ``represent workers

in the relevant U.S. industry.''

This is the same determination reached by the Department in the

original apparel and textile mill product investigations. See Malaysia

Final Determination at 9854. Contrary to the claim of the RTG, we have

not determined that a union representing just one worker at just one

facility producing the like product necessarily qualifies as an

interested party. We have determined that when a union certifies, as

ACTWU has done, that it represents workers in the relevant U.S.

industry, we will not investigate the matter further, absent actual

evidence calling the union's certification into question. This

determination is further explained in the Department's Position on

comment 2, below.

Having found that ACTWU qualifies as an interested party, the next

issue is whether the union may object to revocation and request an

administrative review for those like products for which it has claimed

standing. Section 355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the Department's regulations

provides simply that if no interested party objects to revocation or

requests a review, the Department will conclude that the order (or

suspended investigation) is no longer of interest to domestic

interested parties, as provided for by section 355.25(d)(1)(i).

Conversely, if a domestic interested party does object, and no other

party expresses its support for revocation, the Department will not

revoke the order. In this situation, the Department effectively

presumes that the order, whether in whole or in part, is of interest to

domestic interested parties and that revocation is not appropriate.

The Department indicated in the commentary to the regulations that

when ``parties which account for a significant proportion of domestic

production'' either affirmatively oppose or support revocation, we will

make a case-by-case determination of whether revocation is appropriate.

53 FR 52,306, 52,333 (1988). Accordingly, the Department has revoked an

order over the objection of one or more domestic interested parties,

and we have refused to revoke despite receiving support for revocation

from part of the domestic industry. See Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v.

United States, 862 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (affirming revocation);

Certain Round-Shaped Agricultural Tillage Tools From Brazil;

Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances CVD Review and Intent Not

To Revoke Order, 55 FR 41,265 (1990) (declining to revoke). In this

case, however, no domestic interested party has expressed support for

the order. ACTWU's objection to revocation is the only indication we

have received regarding the domestic industry's position. As described

above, ACTWU has certified that it represents workers producing each of

the remaining 57 like products, which qualifies the union as an

interested party. Given that no domestic interested party has supported

revocation, it is reasonable to presume that the remainder of the

industry favors or at least acquiesces in ACTWU's position.

This is similar to the presumption adhered to by the Department for

determining whether a petition for initiating an antidumping or

countervailing duty investigation is filed ``on behalf of an

industry,'' in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act. In that

situation, the Department presumes that the petitioner filed on behalf

of the domestic industry, unless a majority of the domestic industry

affirmatively opposes the petition. The Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit has upheld this interpretation of the statute as being

reasonable. Minebea Co., Ltd. v. United States, 984 F.2d 1178, 1180

(Fed. Cir. 1993); Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United

States, 966 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Comment 2: The RTG next argues that, even assuming the Department

has applied the correct legal standard, the Department must still

investigate whether ACTWU meets this standard, both with respect to the

52 like products for which ACTWU was found to have standing in the

original investigation and with respect to the five products for which

ACTWU first made standing claims in this proceeding. The RTG claims

that it is incorrect for the Department to refuse to reconsider its

original standing determination; moreover, the Department cannot refuse

to further investigate ACTWU's additional claims of standing, absent

affirmative evidence that ACTWU's interested party status has changed.

Regarding the 52 like products for which ACTWU originally claimed

standing, the RTG contests the Department's refusal during this

proceeding to reconsider its determination in the original

countervailing duty investigation. The RTG argues that it was

documented in the context of the original 1984-1985 investigations that

union membership in

[[Page 395]]

the apparel industry had been gradually declining. The RTG asserts that

it is likely that this trend has continued and that ACTWU's membership

has changed over time. The RTG also asserts that companies in import

sensitive industries have been moving production facilities from the

unionized Northeast to non-unionized areas in the South, to Mexico, and

elsewhere overseas. On this basis, the RTG concludes that there exists

public information showing declining and changing union membership in

the apparel industry.

According to the RTG, these facts should have caused the Department

to revisit its 1985 determination. In addition, the RTG claims that the

information provided by ACTWU in 1984, indicating standing for 52 of

the like products, is inconsistent with ACTWU's ultimate claim in 1994

of standing for five additional like products. In claiming standing for

five additional like products, ACTWU called attention to obvious

changes in membership over time. Such changing membership indicates

that ACTWU may no longer represent one or more of the like product

industries it represented in 1984.

Furthermore, the RTG argues, the Department's determination that

ACTWU is an interested party with respect to the original 52 like

products was based on ACTWU's certification during the investigation

that it was an ``interested party.'' According to the RTG, this is a

legal conclusion on the part of ACTWU, and is therefore not the

appropriate basis for the Department's determination. Rather, the

Department should seek a factual representation from which to draw its

own legal conclusion.

As a matter of policy, the RTG argues that it is inappropriate for

the Department to place the burden of production in this instance on

respondents. ACTWU's membership information is not public; it would be

impossible for the RTG to determine whether ACTWU continues to

represent workers in each of the like product industries at issue; and,

it is contrary to the normal presumption of the conduct of a

countervailing duty investigation to require a party to come forward

with another party's confidential information.

Thus, the RTG urges the Department to solicit and examine

information regarding ACTWU's membership, as it relates to these like

products. Specifically, for each like product, the RTG urges the

Department to obtain the following information: the names of the

companies in which ACTWU represents workers, the number of union-

represented and non-union workers in each such facility, the names of

companies which produce the like product whose workers are not

represented by the union, and an estimate of the number of workers in

such facilities.

Department's Position: We disagree with the RTG. As described in

the Analysis Memorandum, absent affirmative evidence showing that a

party's status has changed, we do not reconsider our original standing

determination with respect to those like products for which a domestic

interested party, objecting to revocation or requesting a review, had

interested party status during the original investigation. Moreover,

ACTWU has certified that it continues to represent workers producing

each of the 52 like products for which it was originally determined to

have standing, and neither the RTG nor any other party has presented

affirmative evidence challenging ACTWU's certification.

It is true that several years have passed since the Department

reached its original standing determination. However, the Department is

not required to investigate standing issues to the same extent as it

must allegations of dumping or subsidization. See Brother Indus., Ltd.

v. United States, Slip Op. 92-231 at 4-5 (CIT Dec. 30, 1992). For the

purpose of requesting a review or objecting to revocation, it would not

be appropriate either to revisit our original standing determination or

to question a union's certification that it represents workers

producing a particular like product, absent some evidence that the

union's representation of those workers has, in fact, changed.

Much the same holds true for the remaining like products for which

ACTWU claimed standing. The union certified that it represents workers

in each of these industries, and the RTG has presented no evidence to

the contrary. Absent such evidence, we consider ACTWU's certification

sufficient. It is worth noting that the Department did not accept

ACTWU's initial standing claim at face value. ACTWU originally claimed

that its members produced eighteen additional products. ACTWU correctly

qualified this claim, however, by noting that the products its members

produced were identical to the products covered by the scope of the

order except for vegetable fiber content. The Department rejected this

claim on the ground that the like product list describing the scope of

the order distinguishes among apparel products on this very basis--

according to fiber content. See Letter from Barbara Tillman to Mark

Love, dated May 11, 1994, on file in CRU. Thereafter, ACTWU withdrew

this claim, and submitted another claim with respect to five different

like products, which ACTWU certified as being identical to those

covered by the scope of the order. We examined the claim and the

certification, and deemed the certification sufficient to support the

claim, absent evidence to the contrary. No such evidence was provided.

This standard does not place an undue burden on respondents to

produce evidence to challenge a union's standing to object to

revocation or request a review. The Department found at the time of the

original investigation that ACTWU represented workers producing 52 like

products, and ACTWU has certified that it continues to produce these

and the other five like products for which it has claimed standing. It

is not too much to require that a party challenging this assertion do

more than point to the passage of time and shifts in demographics as

support. Like the standard for filing a petition, the standing

requirements for objecting to revocation are to be construed liberally.

See Brother Indus., Slip Op. 92-231 at 4 (citing S. Rep. 249 at 63);

Brother Indus., 801 F.Supp. At 757. We determine that ACTWU has met

these requirements.

Comment 3: The RTG argues that the Department should revoke the

order with respect to those products at the HTS ten-digit level that do

not fall within the 57 like products for which ACTWU has claimed

standing. The RTG notes that examination of standing at the ten-digit

level is consistent with the standing analysis used by the Department

in the suspended investigation of certain textile mill products from

Thailand. The RTG is concerned that at the eight-digit level, the HTS

item numbers cover several products, some of which are represented

among the list of 86 like products originally covered by this

countervailing duty order and some of which are not. Thus, the

Department should revoke the order for these products at the ten-digit

level.

Department's Position: Beginning with the conversion from the TSUSA

to the HTS tariff schedule, the Department has conducted its standing

analysis in this proceeding at the ten-digit HTS level. See Scope

Notice, 59 FR at 25610. This is the same approach we took in the

suspended investigations involving textile mill products from Thailand

and various other countries. See, e.g., Certain Mill Products From

Thailand; Notice of Termination in Part, 60 FR 20258 (April 25, 1995);

Certain Textile

[[Page 396]]

Mill Products From Colombia and Thailand; Notice of Proposed

Conversion, 59 FR 16101 (April 15, 1994). If only the eight-digit HTS

item number is listed for a particular product category, either the

category does not break down into additional ten-digit HTS levels, or

all of the products included in that category (at the eight-digit or

greater level) are covered by the scope of the order.

Where the qualifications of coverage corresponded to the breakdown

of products at the ten-digit level, we have now included the

appropriate HTS numbers at the ten-digit level to identify both HTS

items for which the order remains in effect for the 1991 review period

and the HTS items for which the effective date of revocation will be

amended (as indicated in Appendix B and Appendix D). Further, in

drawing up the HTS list, we included annotations for the first time in

the Scope Notice to clarify the limits of coverage under particular

item numbers which identified merchandise outside of the scope of the

order as well as merchandise within the scope. In the course of this

proceeding, the Department has added a number of annotations, and other

annotations have been clarified as a result of the RTG's arguments in

Comment 4 below.

Comment 4: The RTG urges the Department to reexamine some of the

products for which it found ACTWU to have standing and to revise the

footnotes which annotate certain of the HTS item numbers for which it

found ACTWU to have standing. Basically, the RTG takes issue with some

of the Department's categorizations of the numerous HTS item numbers

according to the list of 86 like products which has been the basis for

standing determinations throughout the history of this case.

Specifically, the Department categorized HTS number 6111.3050 (babies'

garments and cloth accessories, sunsuits, blanket sleepers (synthetic,

knit)) under the like products for nightwear (like product 58), other

apparel (60), or playsuits (45). According to the RTG, there is no

indication that these like product categories were ever intended to

include baby apparel, and that only those like product categories which

carry the designation ``WGI,'' for women's, girls', and infants'

apparel, should be used for determining ACTWU's standing with regard to

baby apparel. Since ACTWU made no standing claims with respect to many

WGI like products made from synthetic fabric, it is reasonable to

conclude that ACTWU lacked standing with respect to babies' garments

and clothing accessories. Thus, the Department should revoke the order

with respect to HTS 6111.3050.

In addition, the Department found ACTWU to have standing for HTS

6112.1200, men's and boys' synthetic track suits, based on ACTWU's

standing for the like products for other coats (42), knit shirts (46),

and trousers (54) of man-made fiber. According to the RTG, there is no

indication that track suits or other warm-up style suits were ever

intended to fall within these particular like products, and therefore,

the order with respect to this HTS item number should also be revoked.

The RTG argues that the Department also incorrectly classified the

products included under HTS 6209.2050, babies' sunsuits, washsuits,

clothing sets and diapers (non-knit, cotton), under the like products

for playsuits (8) and other apparel (21) of cotton, and found ACTWU to

have standing with respect to all products within this HTS subheading.

The RTG takes issue with the Department's determination that diapers

constitute ``other apparel,'' and notes that there is no indication

that ACTWU represents workers making diapers. Thus, the order should be

revoked with respect to HTS 6209.2050.

With respect to ``trousers, breeches, and shorts,'' the RTG's

argues that the like product categories for ``trousers'' necessarily

exclude breeches and shorts, and therefore although ACTWU was found to

have standing with respect to ``trousers,'' it cannot be said to have

standing with respect to breeches and shorts. Because the HTS numbers

which identify trousers also include breeches and shorts, and there is

no indication, according to the RTG, that ACTWU's standing for trousers

extends to breeches and shorts, the RTG argues for an annotation which

notes the limits of coverage under any HTS item numbers which cover

``trousers breeches, and shorts'' together. Alternatively, the RTG

argues for revocation of the HTS numbers at the ten-digit level.

The RTG also noted a number of additional HTS item numbers for

which they recommend the Department modify the annotations to clarify

the limits of the coverage under those item numbers.

Department's Position: With respect to HTS item numbers 6111.3050,

6112.1200, and 6209.2050, the RTG's concern that the Department has

misclassified these HTS items in terms of the listing of like products

which are subject to the order is misplaced. As a general matter, in

classifying these items using the like product list, the Department

consulted with the United States Customs Service and received

confirmation that the classifications were reasonable. See Memorandum

for The File on Certain Apparel from Thailand--Like Products and HTS

Numbers, dated February 20, 1996, on file in the CRU.

We reject the RTG's argument that ACTWU's standing with respect to

babies' apparel on the whole is questionable based on the fact that

ACTWU lacks standing with respect to several items of babies' apparel

included among the like products. The Department determined ACTWU's

standing for these HTS item numbers after first classifying them

according to like products. Because ACTWU was determined to have

standing for all of the like products under which these HTS items were

classified, their standing for this HTS item number needs no

qualification.

We also reject the RTG's conclusion that track suits were never

intended to be included among the 87 like products covered by the

countervailing duty order. This conclusion is unsupported by record

evidence. This issue, like so many of the issues raised by the RTG,

actually concerns the Department's conversion of the tariff schedule

from the TSUSA to the HTS listing. As noted above, ACTWU represents

workers producing the like products ``other coats,'' ``knit shirts,''

and ``trousers'' of man-made fiber. In conducting the original

investigation, the Department determined that those like products

corresponded to a certain TSUSA item number or numbers. Thereafter, in

making the conversion from TSUSA to HTS, the Department concluded that

those TSUSA item number or numbers corresponded in part to the HTS item

number 6112.1200.10, for men's and boys' synthetic track suits. At the

same time, we determined that of the like products corresponding to the

coverage of the order, the closest match to track suits are the like

products mentioned above. Thus, we based our standing determination for

track suits on the fact that ACTWU has standing for the individual like

products which comprise track suits.

This is a reasonable determination. While synthetic track suits do

constitute a single item for HTS purposes, a track suit actually

consists of two separate components, a relatively light-weight

synthetic coat and trousers. Indeed, the HTS listing for track suits is

broken down into coats, shirts, and trousers; in the case of coats, the

HTS then cross-references the separate HTS listings for those items.

This confirms that it is reasonable to classify track suits under the

like products for their components.

Similarly, many of the other standing determinations questioned by

the RTG concern HTS item numbers which cover

[[Page 397]]

``ensembles,'' which we have classified under the like products for

their components. In reviewing our determinations, we agree with the

RTG that certain of these classifications should be clarified. In many

cases, ACTWU was found to have standing for some of the components and

not for others. ACTWU's standing with respect to the HTS item is

limited by the like products for the ensemble components for which it

was found to have standing. Thus, we have clarified the annotations as

appropriate, or resorted to the use of the ten-digit HTS item number,

as explained in Comment 3 above and as indicated in Appendix B.

We disagree, however, that the like product category ``trousers''

excludes breeches and shorts. We determine that breeches and shorts are

types of trousers. Therefore ACTWU's standing with respect to

``trousers'' extends to all types of trousers, including breeches and

shorts. Thus, we will neither be adding the annotation desired by the

RTG nor revoking at the ten-digit level the HTS numbers for breeches

and shorts.

Determination to Amend Revocation, in Part

For the reasons stated above, the Department has determined that

the ACTWU does not have standing as an interested party with respect to

30 of the like products covered by this countervailing duty order, as

listed in Appendix C this notice. The HTS item numbers corresponding to

the like products listed in Appendix C are listed in Appendix D. The

Department is now amending the effective date of the revocation of the

order with respect to these HTS item numbers to make it effective

January 1, 1991. Accordingly, for the merchandise identified in

Appendix D, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all unliquidated

entries made on or after January 1, 1991.

The Department determines that ACTWU does have standing as an

interested party, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(D) and 19 C.F.R.

Sec. 355.2(i)(4), with respect to 57 like products. These like products

are listed in Appendix A. The HTS item numbers which correspond to

these like products are listed in Appendix B, with appropriate

annotations as discussed above. Thus, the Department will conduct the

administrative review of entries of the merchandise listed in Appendix

B, made during the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991,

and will issue appropriate instructions to Customs with respect to

these entries upon completion of the review.

This countervailing duty order was subject to section 753 of the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See Countervailing Duty Order;

Opportunity to Request a Section 753 Injury Investigation, 60 FR 27,963

(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 the order,

effective January 1, 1995, pursuant to section 753(b)(3)(B) of the Act,

and ordered Customs to terminate suspension of liquidation and to

refund all cash deposits made after January 1, 1995. Revocation of

Countervailing Duty Orders, 60 FR 40568 (August 9, 1995). Accordingly,

for the merchandise listed in Appendix B for which the Department is

not amending the effective date of revocation, the Department intends

to order Customs to liquidate shipments exported on or after January 1,

1991 and entered on or before December 31, 1991, in accordance with the

final results of the administrative review. We will not issue further

instructions with respect to suspension of liquidation or cash deposits

of estimated countervailing duties.

This determination and notice are in accordance with sections 751

(a) and (c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 1675(c)).

Dated: December 9, 1996.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix A--C-549-401 Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Apparel From

Thailand Like Products for Which ACTWU Has Standing

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

Like product code No. Like product description

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

Cotton:

1............................... Handkerchiefs.

2............................... Gloves.

3............................... Hosiery.

4............................... Suit-type coats, M&B.

5............................... Other Coats, M&B.

8............................... Playsuits.

9............................... Knit Shirts, M&B.

10.............................. Knit Shirts & Blouses, WGI.

11.............................. Shirts, Not Knit, M&B.

14.............................. Sweaters.

15.............................. Trousers, M&B.

19.............................. Nightwear.

20.............................. Underwear.

21.............................. Other Apparel.

Wool:

22.............................. Gloves.

23.............................. Hosiery.

24.............................. Suit-type Coats, M&B.

25.............................. Other Coats, M&B.

26.............................. Coats, WGI.

28.............................. Knit Shirts & Blouses.

29.............................. Shirts & Blouses, Not Knit.

30.............................. Skirts.

31.............................. Suits, M&B.

33.............................. Sweaters, M&B.

35.............................. Trousers, M&B.

36.............................. Trousers, WGI.

37.............................. Other Wool Apparel.

Man-Made Fiber:

38.............................. Handkerchiefs.

39.............................. Gloves.

40.............................. Hosiery.

41.............................. Suit-type Coats, M&B.

42.............................. Other Coats, M&B.

45.............................. Playsuits.

46.............................. Knit Shirts, M&B.

48.............................. Shirts, Not Knit, M&B.

51.............................. Suits, M&B.

52.............................. Suits, WGI.

53.............................. Sweaters.

54.............................. Trousers, M&B.

58.............................. Nightwear.

59.............................. Underwear.

60.............................. Other Apparel.

Other Fabric:

61.............................. Handkerchiefs.

62.............................. Gloves.

63.............................. Hosiery.

64.............................. Suit-type Coats, M&B.

65.............................. Other Coats, M&B.

68.............................. Playsuits.

69.............................. Knit Shirts M&B.

71.............................. Shirts, Not Knit, M&B

74.............................. Suits, M&B.

76.............................. Sweaters, M&B.

78.............................. Trousers, M&B.

82.............................. Nightwear.

83.............................. Down-filled Coats, M&B.

85.............................. Underwear.

86.............................. Other Apparel.

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

Appendix B--C-549-401 Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Apparel From

Thailand Harmonized Tariff Schedule Numbers

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

HTS No. Annotation

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

6101.2000.................... Coverage excludes garments having

embroidery or permanently affixed

applique work on the outer surface.

6101.3020

[[Page 398]]

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 men's and boys'

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 men's and boys'

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 men's and boys'

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.

[[Page 399]]

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

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

Appendix C--C-549-401 Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Apparel From

Thailand Like Products for Which ACTWU Does Not Have Standing

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

Like product code No. Like product description

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

Cotton:

6............................... Coats, WGI.

7............................... Dresses.

12.............................. Blouses, Not Knit, WGI.

13.............................. Skirts.

16.............................. Trousers, WGI.

17.............................. Brassieres, etc.

18.............................. Dressing Gowns.

Wool:

27.............................. Dresses.

32.............................. Suits, WGI.

34.............................. Sweaters, WGI

Man-Made Fiber:

43.............................. Coats, WGI.

44.............................. Dresses.

47.............................. Knit Shirts & Blouses, WGI.

49.............................. Blouses, Not Knit, WGI.

50.............................. Skirts.

55.............................. Trousers, WGI.

56.............................. Brassieres, etc.

57.............................. Dressing Gowns.

Other Fabric:

66.............................. Coats, WGI.

67.............................. Dresses.

70.............................. Knit Shirts & Blouses, WGI.

72.............................. Blouses, Not Knit, WGI.

73.............................. Skirts.

75.............................. Suits, WGI.

77.............................. Sweaters, WGI.

79.............................. Trousers, WGI.

80.............................. Brassieres, etc.

81.............................. Dressing Gowns.

84.............................. Down-filled Coats, WGI.

Other Like:

87.............................. Flatgoods, handbags, and luggage.

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

Appendix D--C-549-401 Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Apparel From

Thailand Harmonized Tariff Schedule Numbers

(For which revocation will be amended from January 1, 1995 to January

1, 1991)

4202.1240 6104.2910.70 6112.2010.90

4202.1260 6104.3100 6113.0000.30

4202.1280 6104.3310 6114.3010.20

4202.2245 6104.3320 6202.1220

4202.2260 6104.3910 6202.1340

4202.2270 6104.4200 6202.9220

4202.2280 6104.4320 6202.9345

4202.3240 6104.4420 6202.9350

4202.3295 6104.5200 6204.1200

4202.9215 6104.5320 6204.2230

4202.9220 6104.6220 6204.2920.15

4202.9230 6104.6320 6204.2920.20

4202.9260 6106.2020 6204.2920.25

4202.9290 6109.9010.50 6204.3220

6102.3010 6109.9010.60 6204.3350

6102.3020 6109.9010.65 6204.3930

6104.1200 6109.9010.70 6204.4230

6104.2100.70 6109.9010.75 6204.4340

6104.2200.30 6109.9010.90 6204.4440

6104.2200.40 6110.3030.30 6204.5220

6104.2200.50 6110.3030.35 6204.5330

6104.2300.10 6110.3030.45 6204.5930

6104.2300.14 6110.3030.55 6204.6240

6104.2300.16 6111.3010 6204.6335

6104.2300.20 6111.3020 6204.6925

6104.2300.24 6111.3030 6206.3030

6104.2300.26 6111.9010 6206.4030

6104.2300.30 6111.9020 6208.9200.10

6104.2300.32 6111.9030 6208.9200.20

6104.2300.34 6112.1200.20 6209.2010

6104.2300.36 6112.1200.40 6209.2020

6104.2300.40 6112.1200.60 6209.2030

6104.2300.42 6112.1910.20 6210.3010

6104.2910.10 6112.1910.40 6210.501020

6104.2910.20 6112.1910.60 6212.1050*

6104.2910.30 6112.2010.20 6212.1090*

6104.2910.40 6112.2010.40

6104.2910.50 6112.2010.70

*In the amended HTS list, published May 17, 1994, 6212.1050 and

6212.1090 were not listed. These two numbers replaced 6212.1010 and

6212.1020 in early 1995.

[FR Doc. 97-72 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P