Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41361

Kinetics Device, Model SFA–20.

Manufacturer: Hi-Tech Scientific,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used for the study of

kinetics of reactions occurring during

the drinking and surface water

treatment using different chemical

substances and various techniques. The

instrument will also be used for

educational purposes in the course

Environmental Engineering Analysis

Unit Operations. Application accepted

by Commissioner of Customs: June 26,

1997.

Docket Number: 97–055. Applicant:

University of California, Los Alamos

National Laboratory, P.O. Box 990, Los

Alamos, NM 87545. Instrument: Single

Axis Measuring Machine, Model SIP–

550M. Manufacturer: Societe Genevoise

d’Instruments de Physique, Switzerland.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used to calibrate standards and

instruments to insure that an instrument

or standard is within its assigned

specification and that this

determination is done in such a way

that all recorded data, and all standards

used in obtaining the data, is traceable

to national standards. Application

accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

June 27, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–056. Applicant:

University of Vermont, Department of

Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, 438A

Stafford Hall, Burlington, VT 05405–

0084. Instrument: Roentgen

Stereophotogrammetric Analysis

System. Manufacturer: RSA BioMedical

Innovations AB, Sweden. Intended Use:

The instrument will be used for

orthopaedic research and education

which will include the following: (1)

Measurements of the biomechanical

behavior of different joints (i.e., ankle,

knee, shoulder, spine, etc.), (2)

measurements of how different bones

move relative to each other and (3)

unique measurements of injury, repair

and healing of joints. Other applications

will include studying different types of

spinal deformity, such as scoliosis, or

growth abnormalities. Application

accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

July 1, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–057. Applicant:

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

82071. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer,

Model Sector 54. Manufacturer:

Micromass, Inc, United Kingdom.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used for the studies of U-Th-Pb, Sm-Nd

and Rb-Sr isotopic systems with the aim

of obtaining a better understanding of

crustal evolution through time, from

earliest crustal growth to the most

recent processes of water-rock

interaction. Application accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: July 1, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–058. Applicant:

University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker

Causeway, Miami, FL 33149.

Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model

GEO 20–20. Manufacturer: Europa

Scientific, United Kingdom. Intended

Use: The instrument will be used to

study the stable isotopic composition of

corals, organic materials, natural water

and deep sea sediments for the purposes

of climate reconstruction and

ascertaining global change. In addition,

the instrument will be used to provide

hands on experience to students in the

course Stable Isotopic Composition of

Biological and Geological Processes

MGG 652. Application accepted by

Commissioner of Customs: July 1, 1997.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–20387 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–357–803, C–357–403, C–357–002, C–357–

005]

Leather From Argentina, Wool From

Argentina, Oil Country Tubular Goods

From Argentina, and Carbon Steel

Cold-Rolled Flat Products From

Argentina; Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances countervailing

duty reviews and revocation and

amended revocation of countervailing

duty orders.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has completed the

changed circumstances reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on Leather

from Argentina (55 FR 40212), Wool

from Argentina (48 FR 14423), Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Argentina

(OCTG) (49 FR 46564), and Carbon Steel

Cold-Rolled Flat Products from

Argentina (Cold-Rolled) (49 FR 18006).

The Department initiated these reviews

on April 2, 1996 to determine whether

it has the authority to assess

countervailing duties on entries of

merchandise covered by these orders

occurring on or after September 20,

1991—the date on which Argentina

became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement’’ within the meaning of 19

U.S.C. § 1303(a)(1) (1988) (repealed

1994). On May 2, 1997, the Department

published the preliminary results of

these changed circumstances reviews

(65 FR 24085).

The Department determines that

based upon the ruling of the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in

Ceramica Regiomontana v. United

States, 64 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1995), it does not have the authority to

assess countervailing duties on entries

of merchandise covered by these orders

occurring on or after September 20,

1991. As a result, we are revoking the

orders on Wool, Leather, and OCTG

with respect to all unliquidated entries

occurring on or after September 20,

1991. With respect to Cold-Rolled, the

order was revoked effective January 1,

1995; therefore, we are amending the

effective date of the revocation (with

respect to all unliquidated entries) to

September 20, 1991.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Herring, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement VI, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of Reviews

The scope of each of the four

countervailing duty orders is detailed in

the Appendix to this notice.

Background

I. The Orders

The countervailing duty orders on

Leather, Wool, Cold-Rolled, and OCTG

from Argentina were issued pursuant to

former section 303 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act)(repealed,

effective January 1, 1995, by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act). Under

former section 303, the Department

could assess (or ‘‘levy’’) countervailing

duties without an injury determination

on two types of imports: (i) Dutiable

merchandise from countries that were

not signatories of the 1979 Subsidies

Code or ‘‘substantially equivalent’’

agreements (otherwise known as

‘‘countries under the Agreement’’), and

(ii) duty-free merchandise from

countries that were not signatories of

the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade (1947 GATT). See S. Rep. No.

249, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. 103–06 (1979);

H. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. 43,

49-50 (1979).

When these countervailing duty

orders were issued, Wool, Leather, ColdRolled and OCTG, were dutiable. Also,
41362 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

at that time, Argentina was not a

‘‘country under the Agreement’’ and,

therefore, U.S. law did not require

injury determinations as a prerequisite

to the issuance of these orders.

II. Ruling by the Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit on Ceramic Tile From

Mexico

On September 6, 1995, the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’) held, in a case

involving imports of dutiable ceramic

tile, that once Mexico became a

‘‘country under the Agreement’’ on

April 23, 1985 pursuant to the

Understanding between the United

States and Mexico Regarding Subsidies

and Countervailing Duties (the Mexican

MOU), the Department could not assess

countervailing duties on ceramic tile

from that country under former section

303(a)(1) of the Act. Ceramica

Regiomontana v. United States, 64 F.3d

1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Ceramica).

‘‘After Mexico became a ‘country under

the Agreement,’ the only provision

under which ITA could continue to

impose countervailing duties was

section 1671.’’ Id. One of the

prerequisites to the assessment of

countervailing duties under 19 U.S.C.

§ 1671 (1988), according to the court, is

an affirmative injury determination. See

also Id. at § 1671e. However, at the time

the countervailing duty order on

ceramic tile was issued, the requirement

of an affirmative injury determination

under U.S. law was not applicable.

Therefore, the court looked to see

whether the statute contained any

transition rules when Mexico became a

country under the Agreement which

might provide the order on tile with the

required injury test. Specifically, the

court looked at section 104(b) of the

Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Pub. L.

No. 96–39 (July 20, 1979) (1979 Act).

Section 104(b) was designed to

provide an injury test for certain

countervailing duty orders issued under

former section 303 prior to the effective

date of the 1979 Act (which established

Title VII and, in particular, section 701

of the Act). However, in order to induce

other countries to accede to the 1979

Subsidies Code (or substantially

equivalent agreements), the window of

opportunity was intentionally limited.

In order to qualify (i) the exporting

nation had to be a country under the

Agreement (e.g., a signatory of the

Subsidies Code) by January 1, 1980, (ii)

the order had to be in existence on

January 1, 1980 (i.e., the effective date

of Title VII), and (iii) the exporting

country (or in some instances its

exporters) had to request the injury test

on or before January 2, 1983.

In Ceramica, however, the

countervailing duty order on ceramic

tile was issued in 1982 and Mexico did

not become a country under the

Agreement until April 23, 1985.

Therefore, the court held that in the

absence of an injury test and the

statutory means to provide an injury

test, the Department could not assess

countervailing duties on ceramic tile

and the court ordered the Department to

revoke the order effective April 23, 1985

(i.e., the date Mexico became a country

under the Agreement). Ceramica, 64

F.3d at 1583. As the court stated, once

Mexico became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement,’’ ‘‘[t]he only statutory

authority upon which Congress could

impose duties was section 1671.

Without the required injury

determination, Commerce lacked

authority to impose duties under section

1671.’’

III. The Issue

On September 20, 1991, the United

States and Argentina signed the

Understanding Between the United

States of America and the Republic of

Argentina Regarding Subsidies and

Countervailing Duties (Argentine MOU).

Section III of the Argentine MOU

contains provisions substantially

equivalent to the provisions in the

Mexican MOU that were before the

court in Ceramica. Therefore, on April

2, 1996, the Department initiated the

instant changed circumstances reviews

in order to determine whether it has the

authority, in light of the Ceramica

decision, to assess countervailing duties

on unliquidated entries of merchandise

made on or after September 20, 1991

(i.e., the effective date of the Argentine

MOU) which are covered by the orders

on Leather from Argentina, Wool from

Argentina, OCTG from Argentina, and

Cold-Rolled from Argentina. See

Initiation of Changed Circumstances

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews: Leather from Argentina, Wool

from Argentina, Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Argentina, and Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Argentina, 61 FR 14553 (Apr. 2, 1996).

Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Reviews and Revocation or Amended

Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Orders

The orders on Leather, Wool, OCTG,

and Cold-Rolled from Argentina involve

the same set of pertinent facts as the

Department faced in connection with

the countervailing duty order on

ceramic tile from Mexico. For this

reason, the Federal Circuit’s decision in

Ceramica applies to the orders against

Argentina, and requires the Department

to revoke these orders as of the date

Argentina became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement.’’

First, at the time the countervailing

duty orders on Mexico and Argentina

were issued, the requirement of an

affirmative injury determination under

U.S. law was not applicable. Second,

both countries subsequently entered

into substantially equivalent agreements

with the United States and, hence,

became ‘‘countries under the

Agreement’’ within the meaning of

former section 303(a)(1) of the Act.

Third, once Mexico and Argentina

qualified as countries under the

Agreement, the assessment of

countervailing duties on subsequent

entries of dutiable merchandise became

dependent upon a finding of

subsidization and injury in accordance

with section 701 of the Act (i.e., section

1671). See Ceramica, 64 F.3d at 1582.

Fourth, none of the transition rules in

effect when both countries attained this

status afforded the statutory means of

providing an injury test. Specifically,

section 104 of the 1979 Act only applies

to countervailing duty orders issued

before January 1, 1980 and section 753

did not exist on September 20, 1991.

Hence, as the Court stated in Ceramica,

‘‘[W]ithout the required injury

determination, Commerce lacked

authority to impose duties under section

1671.’’

Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act,

the Department may revoke, in whole or

in part, a countervailing duty order if

the Department determines, based on a

review under section 751(b)(1) of the

Act, that changed circumstances exist

sufficient to warrant revocation. For the

foregoing reasons, and consistent with

our determinations in Ceramic Tile from

Mexico, 61 FR 6630 (Feb. 21, 1996) and

Leather Wearing Apparel from Mexico,

61 FR 26163 (May 24, 1996), the

Department has determined that the

Ceramica ruling requires revocation of

these orders and, therefore, the

requirement for revocation based upon

changed circumstances has been met.

Accordingly, we hereby amend our

earlier revocation of the order on ColdRolled steel by changing the effective

date from January 1, 1995 to September

20, 1991. For the orders on Wool,

Leather, and OCTG from Argentina, we

are revoking these measures effective

September 20, 1991. These revocations

will apply to all unliquidated entries of

subject merchandise entered or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption on or after September 20,

1991.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41363

Comments From Interested Parties

In our preliminary results, we invited

interested parties to submit comments

on our intent to revoke the orders on

Leather, Wool and OCTG, and on our

intention to amend the revocation of

Cold-Rolled. With respect to the

countervailing duty orders on Leather

and Wool, we received written

comments in opposition to our

preliminary results from a coalition of

U.S. leather manufacturers consisting of

Hermann-Oak Leather Co., Howes

Leather Co., Inc., Irving Tanning Co.,

Prime Tanning Co., Inc., Salz Leather

Co., S.B. Foot Tanning Co., Suncook

Tanning Corp., United Tanners, Inc.,

Westfield Tanning Co., and Wickett &

Craig of America, Inc. (the Coalition),

and the American Sheep Industry

Association, Inc. (‘‘ASI’’), an association

of U.S. wool producers (hereinafter the

Coalition and ASI will jointly be

referred to as ‘‘petitioners’’). We also

received written comments in support

of our preliminary results from the

Government of Argentina (‘‘GOA’’) with

respect to all four countervailing duty

orders. In connection with the order on

Leather, the Department received

written (rebuttal) comments from

several importers that supported the

preliminary results—Leather’s Best,

Inc., Leather’s Best, L.P., Salco Leather,

Inc., and Edsim Leather Company, Inc.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as

‘‘Edsim’’). Finally, the American Textile

Manufacturers Institute (‘‘ATMI’’) also

submitted written (rebuttal) comments

in support of the preliminary results on

behalf of its member companies, some

of which are importers of wool.

Comment 1: While petitioners

concede that the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Ceramica applies to the

orders against Argentina, they argue that

the Department has misconstrued the

court’s decision. Contrary to what they

assert is the Department’s view, the

petitioners contend that the court did

not mandate the revocation of the

countervailing duty order on ceramic

tile because ‘‘there was no affirmative

injury finding at * * * [the] precise

time’’ that Mexico became a ‘‘country

under the Agreement.’’ Rather, they

assert, the court ordered revocation

because the domestic ceramic tile

industry did not request an injury test

under section 753 of the Act and,

therefore, ‘‘there could never be an

affirmative injury finding’’ in

connection with the entries subject to

the contested administrative review.

This situation, the petitioners argue,

is quite different from the situation the

Department confronts in connection

with the countervailing duty orders on

Wool and Leather from Argentina. Here,

they maintain, the domestic industries

have requested an injury test under

section 753(a) for entries of Argentine

wool and leather occurring after January

1, 1995.

The GOA contends that the

petitioners stretch the holding in the

Ceramica case ‘‘beyond recognition.’’

According to the GOA, the Department’s

preliminary results fit squarely with the

court’s decision that in the absence of

statutory authority to maintain the

orders under section 303 of the Act,

‘‘the Department’s actions under section

701 were illegal.’’

While Edsim generally supports the

GOA’s position, it has a slightly

different view of the Ceramica case.

Edsim argues that the central teaching of

the Ceramica decision is that a

countervailing duty order is only viable

if the Department has the statutory

authority to maintain it under either

section 303 or 701 of the Act. If an

order—such as the one covering Leather

from Argentina—‘‘changes status so that

it does not satisfy the prerequisites of

either statutory section, then it becomes

inoperative as of the date of the status

change.’’ Viewed in this light, Edsim

argues, it is ‘‘absurd’’ to claim that

section 753, which did not take effect

until January 1, 1995, could apply to

orders which were inoperative as of

September 20, 1991.

Finally, the ATMI, which supports

revocation of the order on Wool, accuses

petitioners of attempting to ‘‘rewrite’’

the Ceramica decision. First, they claim

that the decision does not turn on the

absence of a procedure (or mechanism)

for providing an injury determination at

some future point in time. Second, they

reject the claim made by petitioners that

the absence of a request for a section

753 injury investigation was a key

underpinning to the court’s decision. ‘‘If

this were a basis for the decision,’’ the

ATMI asserts, ‘‘the majority or at least

the dissenting opinion certainly would

have mentioned it * * *’’

Department’s Position: We disagree

with petitioners. First, the preliminary

results do not rest on the belief that

once Argentina became a ‘‘country

under the Agreement,’’ it was

incumbent upon the United States to

provide an injury test in connection

with the subject orders ‘‘at that precise

time.’’ Congress has never structured

transition rules, such as section 104(b)

of the 1979 Act or section 753 of the

Act, so that they provide an (affirmative

or negative) injury determination at the

very moment when the status of the

country covered by an order changes.

Second, the failure of the domestic

ceramic tile industry to request an

injury test under section 753 of the Act

was not a significant aspect of the

court’s decision. If it had been,

presumably the court would have

discussed this fact in its opinion. What

was important to the court, as we

explain above, was the absence of any

statutory authority to provide an injury

test at the time Mexico became entitled

to such a test (i.e., when Mexico became

a ‘‘country under the Agreement’’).

When viewed in this, its proper light,

the Ceramica decision compels the

revocation of the orders covering

Leather, Wool, OCTG, and Cold-Rolled

from Argentina. In both situations, once

Mexico and Argentina qualified as

countries under the Agreement, the

assessment of countervailing duties on

subsequent entries of dutiable

merchandise became dependent upon a

finding of subsidization and injury in

accordance with section 701 of the Act.

See Ceramica, 64 F.3d at 1582.

However, none of the transition rules in

effect when both countries attained this

status afforded the statutory means of

providing an injury test. Specifically,

section 104 of the 1979 Act only applies

to countervailing duty orders issued

before January 1, 1980, and section 753

did not come into effect until January 1,

1995.

Comment 2: Petitioners assert that the

Department’s preliminary results read

section 753 out of existence. According

to the petitioners, section 753 was

designed to remedy the very problem

(i.e., absence of an injury test) that arose

in Ceramica. By stating in its

preliminary results that section 753 is

not applicable to the orders against

Argentina, the Department, asserts

petitioners, has violated a fundamental

principle of statutory construction that

requires statutes to be read so as to

render all of their provisions

meaningful.

Department’s Position: The

Department’s position on section 753’s

applicability to the Argentine orders is

not based upon an interpretation of the

statute that is disputed by petitioners.

Petitioners concede that section 753 did

not come into effect until January 1,

1995, long after Argentina became a

‘‘country under the Agreement’’ and the

obligation to provide an injury test

arose. As explained above, the

applicability of 753 to these orders turns

on our understanding of the holding in

Ceramica. Therefore, the suggestion that

we are ‘‘imputing a useless act to

Congress’’ is unfounded.

Section 753 is an important statutory

provision which the Department is

committed to applying and, indeed,

currently is applying with respect to

several outstanding countervailing duty
41364 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

orders (i.e., Extruded Rubber Thread

from Malaysia and Steel Wire Rope from

Thailand). However, it was not enacted

into law until January 1, 1995.

Therefore, consistent with the court’s

reasoning in Ceramica, section 753 is

not applicable to the Argentine orders

under these circumstances.

Comment 3: Petitioners maintain that

revocation of the orders against

Argentina is contrary to the purpose of

the unfair trade laws. In particular,

petitioners assert, it improperly and

unnecessarily harms them because the

Department has not determined that the

relevant foreign producers are no longer

being subsidized.

Department’s Position: This comment

reflects a criticism more properly

directed at the court’s ruling in

Ceramica, not the Department’s

administration of the unfair trade laws

as interpreted by the judiciary. As we

explain above, the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Ceramica applies to the

orders against Argentina, and requires

the Department to revoke these orders as

of the date Argentina became a ‘‘country

under the Agreement.’’

Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the

instant changed circumstances review is

not applicable to entries that occurred

before January 1, 1995 because the

Department has already issued

liquidation instructions covering these

entries. One year after entries are

liquidated, petitioners assert, they are

‘‘deemed liquidated as a matter of law’’

in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a).

As such, these pre-1995 entries are ‘‘no

longer subject to the Commerce

Department’s authority,’’ and the

Department has no authority to ‘‘alter its

liquidation instructions.’’

Edsim disagrees. First, it argues that

the Department has not lost jurisdiction

over any of the subject entries.

Therefore, Edsim asserts, it is entirely

proper for the Department to amend its

previous instructions to Customs.

Second, Edsim claims that section

1504(a) does not apply to the subject

entries because their liquidation was

suspended pursuant to section 751(a) of

the Act.

Department’s Position: Edsim

misconstrues both the language of

section 1504(a), and the interplay

between this statutory provision and 19

CFR 355.22(g), the Department’s

regulation on automatic assessment.

When the Department does not

receive a timely request for an

administrative review, it instructs

Customs under the authority of 19 CFR

355.22(g) to assess countervailing duties

on the entered merchandise in question

at rates equal to the cash deposit or

bond required on that merchandise at

the time of entry or withdrawal from

warehouse for consumption. At that

same time, because the statutory

assessment scheme is retroactive, the

Department will also instruct Customs

to continue to suspend liquidation of

covered merchandise which enters

during the following period of review

and to collect the cash deposit from

importer(s) on all such merchandise.

Thus, merchandise entered into the

United States covered by a

countervailing duty order is only subject

to suspension of liquidation until the

time within which to request an

administrative review has passed.

Thereafter, entered merchandise

covered by the review period is subject

to automatic liquidation under 19 CFR

355.22(g) if no review has been

requested. Stated differently, unless an

interested party requests an

administrative review of entered

merchandise covered by a specific

period of review, the suspension of

liquidation will be terminated, and the

Department will instruct Customs to

liquidate the merchandise pursuant to

the regulation on automatic assessment.

Customs is then required, as a matter of

law under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3)(B), to

liquidate in accordance with our

instructions. Consequently, liquidation

with regard to countervailing duties will

be carried out by Customs where no

timely request for an administrative

review has been made regarding

merchandise subject to a countervailing

duty order entered during a specific

period of review, and Customs receives

instructions to liquidate from the

Department.

With regard to subject merchandise

imported by Edsim, the Department

received no request for an

administrative review after the

countervailing duty order on Leather

from Argentina was issued. Therefore,

the Department was required under 19

CFR 355.22(g), after each review period

where no timely request for an

administrative review was received, to

instruct Customs to assess

countervailing duties on the imports

which were entered or withdrawn

during each applicable period of review.

In turn, Customs, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(3)(B), is to liquidate within 90

days after the Department sends

liquidation instructions, and under

section 1504(d), any entry covered by

the instructions not liquidated within

six months will be deemed liquidated at

the rate of duty asserted at the time of

entry.

In sum, the Department no longer has

jurisdiction over liquidated entries and

cannot amend its liquidation

instructions, as Edsim requests. See,

e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. United

States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

For this reason, the Department

expressly limited its preliminary results

to all unliquidated entries occurring on

or after September 20, 1991.

Instructions to U.S. Customs Service

We are instructing the U.S. Customs

Service to terminate the suspension of

liquidation and liquidate all

unliquidated entries of the subject

merchandise entered or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption on or after

September 20, 1991, without regard to

countervailing duties. We are also

instructing the U.S. Customs Service to

refund with interest any estimated

countervailing duties collected with

respect to those entries. We note that the

requirements for a cash deposit of

estimated countervailing duties were

previously terminated in conjunction

with the section 753 determination

covering cold-rolled steel.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)(1)) and 19 C.F.R.

§ 355.22(h).

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—Scope of the Reviews

I. OCTG From Argentina

Imports covered by this review include

shipments of Argentine OCTG. OCTG

include hollow steel products of circular

cross-section intended for use in the drilling

of oil or gas and oil well casing, tubing and

drill pipe or carbon or alloy steel, whether

welded or seamless, manufactured to either

American Petroleum Institute or proprietary

specifications. The scope covers both

finished and unfinished OCTG. The products

covered in this review are provided for under

item numbers of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS): 7304.20.20, 7304.20.40,

7304.20.50, 7304.20.60, 7304.20.80,

7304.39.00, 7304.51.50, 7304.20.70,

7304.59.60, 7304.59.80, 7304.90.70,

7305.20.40, 7305.20.60, 7305.20.80,

7305.31.40, 7305.31.60, 7305.39.10,

7305.39.50, 7305.90.10, 7305.90.50,

7306.20.20, 7306.20.30, 7306.20.40,

7306.20.60, 7306.20.80, 7306.30.50,

7306.50.50, 7306.60.70, 7306.90.10. The HTS

subheadings are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

II. Wool From Argentina

Imports covered by this review include

shipments of Argentine wool finer than 44s

and not on the skin. These products are

provided for under HTS item numbers:

5101.11.60, 5101.19.60, 5101.21.40, and

5101.29.40. The HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description remains

dispositive.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41365

III. Leather From Argentina

Imports covered by this review include

shipments of Argentine leather. The types of

leather that are covered include bovine

(excluding upper and lining leather not

exceeding 28 square feet, buffalo leather, and

upholstery leather), sheep (excluding

vegetable pretanned sheep and lambskin

leather), swine, reptile (excluding vegetable

pretanned and not fancy reptile leather),

patent leather, calf and kip patent laminated,

and metalized leather. Leather is an animal

skin that has been subjected to certain

treatment to make it serviceable and resistant

to decomposition. It is used in the footwear,

clothing, furniture and other industries. The

types of leather included within the scope

are currently classified under HTS item

numbers 4104.10.60, 4104.10.80, 4104.21.00,

4104.22.00, 4104.29.50, 4104.29.90,

4104.31.50, 4104.31.60, 4104.31.80,

4104.39.50, 4104.39.60, 4104.39.80,

4105.12.00, 4105.19.00, 4105.20.30,

4105.20.60, 4107.10.00, 4107.29.60,

4107.90.30, 4107.90.60, 4109.00.30,

4109.00.40, and 4109.00.70. The HTS

subheadings are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

IV. Cold-Rolled From Argentina

Imports covered by this review include

shipments of Argentine cold-rolled carbon

steel flat products, whether or not corrugated

or crimped; whether or not painted or

varnished and whether or not pickled; not

cut, not pressed, and not stamped to nonrectangular shape; not coated or plated with

metal; over 12 inches in width and under

0.1875 inches in thickness whether or not in

coils; as currently provided for under the

following item numbers of the HTS:

7209.11.00, 7209.12.00, 7209.13.00,

7209.14.00, 7209.21.00, 7209.22.00,

7209.23.00, 7209.24.00, 7209.31.00,

7209.32.00, 7209.33.00, 7209.34.00,

7209.41.00, 7209.42.00, 7209.43.00,

7209.44.00, 7209.90.00, 7210.70.00,

7211.30.50, 7211.41.70, 7211.49.50,

7211.90.00, 7212.40.50. The HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

[FR Doc. 97–20379 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–357–404]

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Argentina; Determination to Amend

Revocation, in Part, of the

Countervailing Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination to

amend revocation, in part, of the

countervailing duty order on certain

textile mill products from Argentina.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has determined to

amend, in part, the effective date of the

revocation of the countervailing duty

order on Certain Textile Mill Products

from Argentina, with respect to the

products classified under item numbers

6305.2000 and 6305.9000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS),

from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 1994.

In addition, the Department has

determined not to revoke with respect to

the products classified under the HTS

item numbers listed in Appendix A to

this notice. As a result of this

determination not to amend the

effective date of revocation with respect

to HTS item numbers found in

Appendix A, such merchandise

exported on or after January 1, 1994

which entered before January 1, 1995

will be liquidated at the cash deposit

rate in effect at the time of entry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne D’Alauro 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

On March 1, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 9727) its intent to revoke the

countervailing duty order on certain

textile mill products from Argentina

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.25(d)(4)(i)

because no interested party had

requested an administrative review for

at least four consecutive review periods.

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

pursuant to 19 CFR

355.25(d)(4)(iii)(1993).

The Department received a timely

objection to the intended revocation

from the American Textile

Manufacturers Institute, Inc. (ATMI)

and its member companies as well as

the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile

Workers Union (ACTWU). The

Department requested clarifying

information from ATMI and ACTWU

regarding the like products their

members produced.

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).

Therefore, the objection to revocation

received from ATMI and ACTWU only

affects entries of merchandise exported

on or after January 1, 1994 and before

January 1, 1995.

Scope Conversion

The scope of the order on certain

textile mill products from Argentina

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 Textile Mill Products

from Argentina (50 FR 9846; March 12,

1985). On January 1, 1989, the United

States fully converted from TSUSA to

the 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 November 1, 1995,

after no comments were received on a

preliminary HTS scope conversion, the

Department published Certain Textile

Mill Products from Argentina; Notice of

Scope Amendment (60 FR 55542) which

finalized the conversion of the scope of

this order from TSUSA to HTS item

numbers.

Applicable Statute

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

statute and to 19 CFR are in reference

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Interested Party Status of ATMI and

ACTWU

The member companies of ATMI

identified and certified as to all of the

like products they produce. The

respective member companies qualify as

interested parties for the like products

they produce under 19 CFR 355.2(i)(3)

because they are ‘‘producers in the

United States of the like products.’’

The ATMI member companies

produce all of the like products covered