[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46475-46479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23371]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-549-401]


Certain Apparel From Thailand: Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain 
apparel from Thailand. We preliminarily determine the net bounty or 
grant to be that described in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' 
section. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary 
results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Kathleen Lockard, 
Office of CVD/AD 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:

Background

    On March 12, 1985, the Department published the Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order; 
Certain Apparel from Thailand (50 FR 9819) (Certain Apparel). On March 
13, 1992, the Department published a Notice of Intent to Revoke 
Countervailing Duty Orders (57 FR 8860). We received a timely objection 
to the Department's intended revocation and a request for an 
administrative review of the review period January 1, 1991, through 
December 31, 1991, from the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers 
Union (ACTWU). The review was initiated on April 13, 1992. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews (57 FR 12797).
    Subsequently, the Royal Thai Government (RTG) filed comments on the 
ACTWU's objection to the revocation of the order, claiming that the 
ACTWU lacked standing under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(9)(D) to object to 
revocation on a number of the like products covered by the CVD 
order.\1\ On July 19, 1996, the Department preliminarily determined 
that the ACTWU had standing for 57 of the 87

[[Page 46476]]

apparel like products covered by the CVD order. On January 3, 1997, the 
Department published a Notice of Determination to Amend Revocation, in 
Part, of Countervailing Duty Order (62 FR 392) which amended the 
effective date of the revocation of the CVD order on certain apparel 
from Thailand from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 1991, with respect to 
the 30 like products for which the ACTWU was found not to have 
standing. In that notice, we also stated that we would continue the 
administrative review of the remaining products for which the ACTWU was 
found to have standing, covering the period January 1 through December 
31, 1991. This review now covers the products identified in the Scope 
of Review section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On May 26, 1995, the Department published Opportunity to 
Request a Section 753 Injury Investigation (60 FR 27693). Because no 
domestic interested parties exercised their right under section 
753(a) of the Act, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(``URAA''), 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 this countervailing duty order, 
effective January 1, 1995, pursuant to section 753(b)(3)(B) of the 
Act. See Revocation of Countervailing Duty Orders (60 FR 40568, 
August 9, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and 
to the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as 
they existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are certain apparel from Thailand. 
Such merchandise is described in detail in the Appendix to this notice.

Best Information Available (BIA)

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to use BIA 
``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to produce 
information requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or 
otherwise significantly impedes an investigation.'' 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1677e(c)(1988); see also 19 CFR Sec. 355.37(1994). In determining 
what rate to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-tiered 
methodology. The Department assigns lower BIA rates to those 
respondents who cooperated in an administrative review (tier two) and 
rates based on more adverse assumptions for respondents who did not 
cooperate in the review, or who significantly impeded the proceeding 
(tier one). See Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F 2d. 
1185, 1191-92 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(Allied-Signal).
    In this review, Mahboonkrong Trading Co., Ltd., UMC International 
Co., Ltd., and Agason (Thailand), Ltd. did not provide responses to the 
Department's questionnaire. However, in its response, the RTG certified 
that these companies have ceased operations, and, where available, the 
RTG provided information from government records on their behalf. The 
RTG's response indicates that these companies had gone out of business 
prior to the time when the Department forwarded the questionnaire for 
this review. Pursuant to the Department's practice, we assign second-
tier BIA to companies which have gone out of business and therefore are 
unable to respond to the Department's questionnaires. See, e.g., 
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review and Notice of Revocation of Order (In Part) (56 
FR 15159, 15173, March 31, 1994). Therefore, in accordance with section 
776 of the Act and Allied-Signal, we are using a second-tier BIA rate 
for these companies based on the highest program rates calculated for 
responding companies.
    In certain instances, individual companies had no longer retained 
detailed information on the use of programs. The RTG provided 
information from government records on behalf of these companies. To 
the extent that the government information was sufficient, we used this 
information in our calculations. If the government information was 
insufficient, in accordance with section 776 of the Act and Allied-
Signal, we used a second-tier BIA rate for individual programs based on 
the highest rate found for responding companies who used that program 
during this review. One program, the Investment Promotion Act (IPA), 
provides for several different types of benefits. The responding 
companies all certified that they did not use any benefits under the 
IPA during the period of review, except for two companies which 
reported receiving benefits under Section 28 of the IPA. In addition, 
the RTG reported that one non-responding company was eligible for 
benefits under Section 36(4) of the IPA, but the RTG did not provide 
information as to whether the company received benefits under this 
provision. Therefore, because no IPA benefits were found to have been 
used in the original countervailing duty investigation and because 
Section 36(4) was not used by a responding company, we are basing BIA 
on the IPA program rate calculated for the 1994 administrative review 
of the countervailing duty order on certain ball bearings from 
Thailand, Certain Ball Bearings from Thailand: Notice of Final Results 
of Administrative Review (62 FR 728, January 6, 1997), which is the 
only proceeding in which benefits under which Section 36(4) of the IPA 
were examined.

Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act and Ceramica 
Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 431, 439 (CIT 1994), 
we calculated the net bounty or grant on a country-wide basis by first 
calculating the rate for each company subject to the administrative 
review. We then weighted the rate received by each company by its share 
of total Thai exports to the United States of subject merchandise 
examined, including all companies, even those with de minimis rates and 
rates based on BIA. We then summed the individual companies' weighted 
rates to determine the country-wide, weighted-average rate from all 
programs benefitting exports of subject merchandise to the United 
States.
    Since the country-wide rate calculated using this methodology was 
above de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR Sec. 355.7, we proceeded to the 
next step and examined the net rate calculated for each company to 
determine whether individual company rates differed significantly from 
the weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 CFR 
Sec. 355.22(d)(3). Two companies had significantly different net rates 
during the review period. These companies are treated separately for 
assessment and cash deposit purposes. All other companies are assigned 
the country-wide rate. See ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section, 
below.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Export Packing Credits
    Export packing credits (EPCs) are short-term pre-shipment export 
loans, provided and recorded on a shipment-by-shipment basis. These 
loans are provided through commercial banks for up to 100 percent of 
the shipment value, and the Bank of Thailand (BOT) will rediscount up 
to 50 percent of the commercial bank loan. Under the ``Regulations of 
the Bank of Thailand Re: The Purchasing of Promissory Notes Arising 
from Exports'' (B.E. 2531), effective October 1, 1988, the commercial 
banks charged the borrower a maximum of 10 percent interest per annum 
for the export credit, and the BOT rediscounted these loans at 5 
percent interest for large exporters and 4 percent interest for small 
exporters. To qualify for the repurchase arrangement, promissory notes 
must be supported by a letter of credit, sales contract, purchase 
order, or warehouse receipt.
    The notes are available for a maximum of 180 days and interest is 
payable on the due date of the loan. The

[[Page 46477]]

due date of the promissory note does not fall beyond the expiry date of 
the letter of credit, ten days after the delivery date indicated on the 
sales contract or purchase order, or the date when the stored goods 
were due to be discharged from the warehouse in the case of goods 
backed by a warehouse receipt. The loan must be repaid within two days 
of shipment, whether or not this occurred before the due date of the 
note. In addition, within 60 days of receipt of a packing credit loan, 
the exporter must submit a Purchase of Goods Report to the BOT.
    If the commercial bank does not meet the terms of the loan, the BOT 
charges the commercial bank a penalty, retroactive to the first day of 
the loan, at 6.5 percent. If the exporter does not meet the terms of 
the loan, the commercial bank passes on to the borrower the additional 
6.5 percent penalty charge. If the exporter can prove that shipment of 
the goods took place within 60 days after the due date, the penalty is 
refunded to the commercial bank by the BOT and the commercial bank 
credits the exporter's account. The purpose of the penalty charge is to 
ensure that companies are using the EPCs to finance export sales.
    In the original investigation, this program was determined to be 
countervailable because the loans were provided only to exporters and 
they were provided at preferential rates (see Certain Apparel). There 
has been no new information or evidence of changed circumstances placed 
on the record of this review to warrant reconsideration of this 
program's countervailability. For companies for which we have specific 
information on EPC usage, we compared the amount of interest paid for 
EPCs during the period of review with the amount of interest that would 
have been paid at the commercial benchmark rate. As the benchmark, we 
used the weighted average of the minimum loan rate (MLR) and the 
minimum overdraft rate (MOR) as reported in the Bank of Thailand 
Quarterly Bulletin. In Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order: Steel Wire Rope from 
Thailand (56 FR 46299; September 11, 1991), the Department determined 
that the MLR and MOR reflected the predominant sources of short term 
commercial financing in Thailand. Use of the weighted-average of the 
MLR and MOR rates as the benchmark for EPCs was also upheld by the 
United States Court of International Trade (CIT). See Royal Thai 
Government and TTU Industrial Corp. v United States, 850 F.Supp. 44, 51 
(CIT 1994).
    For each of the companies for which we have specific information on 
EPC usage, we calculated the rate by subtracting the total interest on 
EPCs for shipment to the United States that the company actually paid 
during the review period from the total amount of interest that would 
have been paid at the benchmark rate, and dividing this benefit by the 
company's total exports to the United States. For companies for which 
we lack specific information on EPC usage, we are assigning as BIA the 
highest rate calculated for a responding company as discussed in the 
``Best Information Available'' section above. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the weighted average bounty or grant under this 
program to be 0.55 percent ad valorem.

B. Tax Certificates for Exports

    The RTG issues, to exporters of record, tax certificates which are 
transferrable and which rebate indirect taxes and import duties levied 
on inputs used to produce exports. This rebate program is provided for 
in the Tax and Duty Compensation of Exported Goods Produced in the 
Kingdom Act (Tax and Duty Act).
    The Tax Certificate program has two rates. The ``A'' rate rebates 
both import duties and indirect domestic taxes and is available to 
companies that have not otherwise had duties refunded. The ``B'' rate 
rebates only indirect domestic taxes and is claimed by exporters who 
have not paid import duties, or who participate in Thailand's customs 
duty drawback program or duty exemption program on imported raw 
materials, or who do not import raw materials for use in production. 
Companies may receive both ``A'' and ``B'' rebates depending on the 
merchandise exported. In the original investigation, we determined that 
the tax certificate for exporters program meets the standard criteria 
for indirect tax rebate programs. This program was determined to be 
countervailable because the rebates provided were excessive in that 
they were based, in part, on the tax incidences for non-physically 
incorporated items. See Certain Apparel.
    By announcement AO 4/2533 (1990) (``AO 4/2533''), effective June 
11, 1990, MOF adopted physical input coefficient (PHIC) based rebate 
rates for the merchandise subject to this review. The PHIC product-
specific methodology was designed to calculate rebate rates which would 
not overrebate the import duties and business taxes levied on the 
inputs by eliminating rebates on non-physically incorporated inputs and 
adjusting the denominator to reflect f.o.b. values. In order to 
determine whether these PHIC-based rebate rates are excessive, we first 
examined whether all of the inputs included in the various PHIC product 
specific calculations were physically incorporated and found that all 
of the inputs were indeed physically incorporated inputs. We then 
reviewed the formulas used to calculate the tax incidences for the 
various inputs. We found that, for domestically-sourced inputs, certain 
factors in the formulas were based on ex-factory rather than f.o.b. 
values. The tax incidence should be based on f.o.b. value because the 
rebate is paid on the f.o.b. value of the exported merchandise.
    The RTG provided the conversion factors needed to recalculate tax 
incidence on an f.o.b. basis. Using these conversion factors, we 
calculated the allowable amounts of tax rebate for the four types of 
tax certificate rebates and compared them to the rebate rates that the 
RTG actually paid. For product category 61 sales, we calculated 
overrebates of 0.04 percent for ``A'' certificates and 0.01 percent for 
``B'' certificates. For product category 62 sales, we calculated 
overrebates of 0.48 percent for ``A'' certificates and 0.1 percent for 
``B'' certificates. For companies for which we have specific 
information on receipt of tax certificates during the period of review, 
we calculated total benefit by multiplying these overrebate rates by 
each company's corresponding values of category 61 ``A'' and ``B'' and 
category 62 ``A'' and ``B'' sales and dividing the total of these 
benefits by the company's total exports of subject merchandise to the 
United States. For companies for which we do not have specific 
information on receipt of tax certificates during the period of review, 
we are assigning as BIA the category 62 ``A'' rate of 0.48 percent ad 
valorem. Based on the above, we preliminarily determine the weighted 
average bounty or grant under this program to be 0.31 percent ad 
valorem.

C. Electricity Discounts for Exporters

    Electricity discounts for exports were terminated effective January 
1, 1990. However, because government authorities could defer action on 
company applications for up to five years, residual benefits were 
possible up to five years after termination of the program. Under this 
program, the electricity authorities in Thailand provided discounts of 
20 percent of the cost of electricity consumed to produce exports. The 
discount was calculated as a credit and deducted from each company's 
electric bill.

[[Page 46478]]

    In the original investigation, this program was determined to be 
countervailable. See Certain Apparel. There has been no new information 
or evidence of changed circumstances placed on the record of this 
review to warrant reconsideration of this program's countervailability. 
For companies for which we have specific information on receipt of 
electricity discounts during the period of review, we calculated the 
benefit attributable to these residual benefits by dividing the amount 
of the electricity discount by the total exports. For companies for 
which we do not have specific information on receipt of electricity 
discounts during the period of review, we are assigning as BIA the 
highest rate calculated for a responding company as discussed in the 
``Best Information Available'' section above. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determined the net bounty or grant from this program to 
be 0.20 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers.

D. Investment Promotion Act (IPA)--Sections 28 and 36(4)

    The Investment Promotion Act of 1977 is administered by the Board 
of Investment (BOI) and is designed to provide incentives to invest in 
Thailand. During the 1985 investigation, none of the IPA programs were 
utilized by the companies subject to review. In order to receive IPA 
benefits, each company must apply to the BOI for a Certificate of 
Promotion (license), which specifies goods to be produced, production 
and export requirements, and benefits allowed. These licenses are 
granted at the discretion of the BOI and are periodically amended or 
reissued to upgrade benefits. Each IPA section for which a company is 
eligible must be specifically identified in the license. This program 
was determined to be countervailable in previous investigations 
involving Thailand. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Partial Countervailing Duty Order: Ball Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From Thailand (54 FR 12130, May 3, 1989). There has been 
no new information or evidence of changed circumstances placed on the 
record of this review to warrant reconsideration of this program's 
countervailability.
    As discussed above, during the period of review, several companies 
were eligible for various IPA benefits; however, reporting companies 
received benefits only under Section 28 of the IPA. Under Section 28, 
an exporting company is allowed to import machinery and equipment 
(fixed assets) free of import duties and business and local taxes. Nan 
Yang Knitting Factory Co., Ltd. and Far East Knitting Co., Ltd. are the 
only companies subject to the review who received IPA Section 28 
benefits. We calculated the Section 28 benefit for each of these 
companies by dividing the total amount of taxes and duties exempted 
during the review period by the companies' total exports.
    In addition, the RTG indicated that several companies were eligible 
for benefits under Section 36(4). Under Section 36(4), the company is 
allowed a tax deduction equal to 5 percent of the increase in export 
earnings over the previous year. No responding company received 
benefits under section 36(4). Thai Iryo Public Co., Ltd. was the only 
eligible company for which no specific information was provided 
regarding the receipt of benefits under this provision of the IPA. 
Therefore, we are assigning a BIA rate to Thai Iryo as discussed in the 
BIA section above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net 
bounty or grant from the IPA program to be 0.07 percent ad valorem for 
all the subject merchandise.

II. Programs Preliminarily Found Not to be Used

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily find that the 
producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for 
or receive benefits under these programs during the period of review.

A. Rediscount of Industrial Bills
B. Assistance for Trading Companies
C. IPA (Sections 29, 30, 31, 33, and 36 (1-3))
D. Export Processing Zones
E. Financing from the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand

Preliminary Results of Review

    For the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991, we 
preliminarily determine the net bounty or grant to be 1.13 percent ad 
valorem for all companies except Thai Garment Export Co., Ltd., Fairtex 
Garment Co., Ltd., Fang Brothers Holding (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and East 
Asia Textile Ind. Co., Ltd., which have de minimis rates.
    If the final results of this review remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess countervailing duties of 1.13 percent ad 
valorem for all shipments of the subject merchandise exported on or 
after January 1, 1991, and on or before December 31, 1991, for all 
producers and exporters except Thai Garment Export Co., Ltd., Fairtex 
Garment Co., Ltd., Fang Brothers Holding (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and East 
Asia Textile Ind. Co., Ltd.
    If the final results of this review remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department also intends to instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, 
all shipments of the subject merchandise by Thai Garment Export Co., 
Ltd., Fairtex Garment Co., Ltd., Fang Brothers Holding (Thailand) Co., 
Ltd., and East Asia Textile Ind. Co., Ltd. exported on or after January 
1, 1991 and on or before December 31, 1991. This is because the 
company-specific rates calculated for these companies are less than 0.5 
percent ad valorem, which is de minimis.
    As noted above, this countervailing duty order was subject to 
section 753 of the Act, as amended by the URAA. See Countervailing Duty 
Order; Opportunity to Request a Section 753 Injury Investigation (60 FR 
27,693, 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 this 
countervailing duty order, effective January 1, 1995, pursuant to 
section 753(b)(3)(B) of the Act. See Revocation of Countervailing Duty 
Orders (60 FR 40568, August 9, 1995) and Notice of Determination to 
Amend Revocation, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Order (62 FR 392, 
January 3, 1997). Accordingly, the Department will not issue further 
instructions with respect to cash deposits of estimated countervailing 
duties.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation 
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than 
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested 
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these 
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted 
seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties who 
submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after the 
scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs 
and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance 
with 19 CFR Sec. 355.38(e).
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under

[[Page 46479]]

administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the 
representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, 
but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 
Sec. 355.38(c), are due. The Department will publish the final results 
of this administrative review including the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
Sec. 355.22.

    Dated: August 27, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix C-549-401--Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Apparel From 
Thailand Harmonized Tariff Schedule Numbers

HTS Number and Annotation
6101.2000  Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or 
permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.
6101.3020
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 mens' and boy's 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 mens' and boy's 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 mens' and boy's 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.
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

[FR Doc. 97-23371 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P