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

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