Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Notices 26717

FTZ Subzone 199A at the refinery

complex of Amoco Oil Company, Texas

City, Texas (Board Order 731, 60 FR

13118, 3/10/95); and,

Whereas, the request has been

reviewed and the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, acting for the

Board pursuant to § 400.32(b)(1),

concurs in the recommendation of the

Executive Secretary, and approves the

request;

Now Therefore, the Board hereby

orders that, subject to the Act and the

Board’s regulations, including § 400.28,

Board Order 668 is revised to replace

the three conditions currently listed in

the Order with the following conditions:

1. Foreign status (19 CFR 146.41, 146.42)

products consumed as fuel for the refinery

shall be subject to the applicable duty rate.

2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41)

shall be elected on all foreign merchandise

admitted to the subzone, except that nonprivileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR

146.42) may be elected on refinery inputs

covered under HTSUS Subheadings #

2709.00.1000–# 2710.00.1050 and #

2710.00.2500 which are used in the

production of:

—Petrochemical feedstocks and refinery byproducts (FTZ staff report, Appendix B);

—Products for export; and,

—Products eligible for entry under HTSUS #

9808.00.30 and 9808.00.40 (U.S.

Government purchases).

3. The authority with regard to the NPF

option is initially granted until September

30, 2000, subject to extension.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of

May 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12198 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[C–201–003]

Ceramic Tile From Mexico; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on ceramic

tile from Mexico. We have preliminarily

determined the total bounty or grant to

be 0.48 percent ad valorem for all

companies during the period January 1,

1993, through December 31, 1993. In

accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate

less than 0.5 percent ad valorem is de

minimis. If the final results remain the

same as these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate,

without regard to countervailing duties

as indicated above.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, 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 May 10, 1982, the Department

published in the Federal Register (47

FR 20012) the countervailing duty order

on ceramic tile from Mexico. On May 4,

1994, the Department published a notice

of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 23051)

of this duty order. We received a timely

request for review from the Government

of Mexico (GOM) and Ceramica

Regiomontana, S.A., (Ceramica).

On June 15, 1994, we initiated the

review, covering the period January 1,

1993, through December 31, 1993 (59 FR

30770). The review covers 40

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise and four programs.

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

provision as they existed on December

31, 1994. However, references to the

Department’s Countervailing Duties;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, 54 FR

23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations), are provided solely for

further explanation of the Department’s

countervailing duty practice. Although

the Department has withdrawn the

particular rulemaking proceeding

pursuant to which the Proposed

Regulations were issued, the subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

See 60 FR 80 (Jan. 3, 1995).

Partial Revocation

On May 31, 1994, in its request for

administrative review, the GOM

submitted a request for partial

revocation for 14 companies which

included only the agreements required

under 19 CFR 355.25(b)(3)(iii). On

November 14, 1995, in its submission of

the questionnaire response, the GOM

submitted company and government

certifications as required under 19 CFR

355.25(b)(3)(i) and (ii) to complete its

request for partial revocation. After

examining the record for each of the 14

companies identified in the requests for

revocation, the Department has

determined that none of them have met

the minimum threshold requirements to

be considered for revocation under 19

CFR 355.25(a)(3)(i). These companies

did not participate in five consecutive

administrative reviews in which they

were found not to have received any net

subsidy, including the review in which

they are requesting revocation, and with

no intervening period in which a review

of the company was not conducted.

Moreover, under 19 CFR 355.25(b)(3),

a company must request revocation in

writing and, with its request, submit (1)

government and company certifications

that the company neither applied for

nor received any net subsidy during the

period of review and will not apply for

or receive any net subsidy in the future;

and (2) the agreement concerning

revocation described in 19 CFR

355.25(a)(3)(iii). (According to 19 CFR

355.25(a)(3)(iii), producers or exporters

must agree in writing to their immediate

reinstatement in the order, as long as

any producer or exporter is subject to

the order, if the Secretary concludes that

the producer or exporter, subsequent to

the revocation, has received any net

subsidy on the merchandise.) In this

case, although the companies filed the

agreements required under 19 CFR

355.25(a)(3)(iii) at the time of the

revocation request, they did not submit

government and company certifications

required under 19 CFR 355.25(b)(3)(i)

and (ii) until November 14, 1995, the

deadline for submission of the

questionnaire response.

All of the requirements for revocation

are fully discussed in Ceramic Tile

From Mexico; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review and Intent To Revoke in Part

Countervailing Duty Order (58 FR

31505; June 3, 1993) and Ceramic Tile

From Mexico; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative
26718 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Notices

Review and Revocation in Part of the

Countervailing Duty Order (59 FR 2823;

January 19, 1994). For the reasons stated

above, these 14 companies did not meet

those requirements and are therefore,

not eligible for revocation in this

administrative review.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of Mexican ceramic tile,

including non-mosaic, glazed, and

unglazed ceramic floor and wall tile.

During the review period, such

merchandise was classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 6907.10.0000, 6907.90.0000,

6908.10.0000, and 6908.90.0000. The

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for

Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

We calculated the bounty or grant on

a country-wide basis by first calculating

the bounty or grant for each company

subject to the administrative review. We

then weight-averaged the rate received

by each company, even those with de

minimis and zero rates, using as the

weight its share of total Mexican exports

to the United States of subject

merchandise. We then summed the

individual companies’ weight-averaged

rates to determine the bounty or grant

from all programs benefitting exports of

subject merchandise to the United

States. Since the country-wide rate

calculated using this methodology was

de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR 355.7,

no further calculations were necessary.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Found to Confer

Subsidies BANCOMEXT Financing for

Exporters

Effective January 1, 1990, the Mexican

Treasury Department eliminated the

Fondo para el Fomento de las

Exportaciones de Productos

Manufacturados (FOMEX) loan program

and transferred the FOMEX trust to the

Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior,

S.N.C. (BANCOMEXT). BANCOMEXT

offers short-term financing to producers

or trading companies engaged in export

activities; any company generating

foreign currency through exports is

eligible for financing under this

program. The BANCOMEXT program

operates much like its predecessor,

FOMEX. BANCOMEXT provides two

types of financing, both in U.S. dollars,

to exporters: working capital loans (preexport loans), and loans for export sales

(export loans). In addition,

BANCOMEXT may provide financing to

foreign buyers of Mexican goods and

services.

The Department has previously found

this program to confer an export subsidy

to the extent that the loans are provided

at preferential terms (See Ceramic Tile

From Mexico; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Review (57 FR

5997, February 19, 1992) and Ceramic

Tile From Mexico; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Review (57 FR

24247, June 8, 1992). In this review the

GOM provided no new information or

evidence of changed circumstances that

would lead the Department to alter that

determination.

We found that the annual interest

rates BANCOMEXT charged to

borrowers for certain loans on which

interest payments were due during the

review period were lower than

commercial rates. The BANCOMEXT

dollar-denominated loans under review

were granted at annual interest rates

ranging from 5.9 percent to 10.0 percent.

As discussed in Certain Steel Products

from Mexico; Final Countervailing Duty

Determination (58 FR 37357, July 9,

1993), because loans are funded by

BANCOMEXT through commercial

banks in dollars and indexed to dollars

for repayment, we used a dollar

benchmark. As the benchmark for

BANCOMEXT pre-export and export

dollar-denominated loans granted in

1993, we used the average of the

quarterly weighted-average effective

interest rates published in the Federal

Reserve Bulletin, which resulted in an

annual benchmark of 7.03 percent in

1993.

We consider the benefits from shortterm loans to occur at the time the

interest is paid. Because interest on

BANCOMEXT pre-export loans is paid

at maturity, we calculated benefits

based on loans that matured during the

review period; these were obtained

between August 1992 and October 1993.

Interest on BANCOMEXT export loans

is paid in advance; we therefore

calculated benefits based on

BANCOMEXT loans received during the

review period.

Three exporters of ceramic tile

products used BANCOMEXT pre-export

financing and one company used

BANCOMEXT export financing.

Because we found that the exporters

were able to tie their BANCOMEXT

loans to specific sales, we measured the

benefit only from the BANCOMEXT

loans tied to sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States. To

determine the benefit for each exporter,

we multiplied the difference between

the interest rate charged to exporters for

these loans and the benchmark interest

rate by the outstanding principal and

then multiplied this amount by the term

of the loan divided by 365. We then

weight-averaged the benefit received by

each company using as the weight its

share of total Mexican exports to the

United States of the subject

merchandise. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the benefit from

this program to be 0.0002 percent ad

valorem for all companies.

PITEX

The Program for Temporary

Importation of Products used in the

Production of Exports (PITEX) was

established by a decree published in the

Diario Oficial on May 9, 1985, and

amended in the Diario Oficial on

September 19, 1986, and May 3, 1990.

The program is jointly administered by

the Ministry of Commerce and

Industrial Development (SECOFI) and

the Customs Administration. Under

PITEX, exporters with a proven export

record may receive authorization to

temporarily import products to be used

in the production of exports for up to

five years without having to pay the

import duties normally imposed on

those imports. PITEX allows for the

exemption of import duties for the

following categories of merchandise

used in export production: raw

materials, packing materials, fuels and

lubricants, machinery used to

manufacture products for export, and

spare parts and other machinery. The

importer must post a bond or other

security to guarantee the reexportation

of the temporary imports. Because it is

only available to exporters, the

Department previously found in Certain

Textile Mill Products From Mexico;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review (56 FR 50859,

October 9, 1991) and Ceramic Tile From

Mexico; Final Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review (57 FR

24247, June 8, 1992) that PITEX

provides countervailable benefits to the

extent that it provides duty exemptions

on imports of merchandise not

physically incorporated into exported

products. The GOM provided no new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances that would lead the

Department to alter that determination.

During the review period, four

companies used the PITEX program for

imports of machinery and spare parts

which are not physically incorporated

into exported products. To determine

the benefit for each exporter, we

calculated the duties that should have

been paid on the non-physically

incorporated items that were imported

under the PITEX program during the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Notices 26719

review period. We then divided that

amount by each company’s total exports

and weight-averaged the benefit

received by each company using as the

weight its share of total Mexican exports

to the United States of the subject

merchandise. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the benefit from

this program to be 0.47 percent ad

valorem for all companies.

NAFINSA Long-Term Loans

Two companies received long-term

financing from NAFINSA loans

(Nacional Finciera Sociedad Anonima).

Until December 31, 1988, NAFINSA

operated as a first-tier bank, which is

defined as a commercial bank that

provides financing directly to the

public. Since December 31, 1988,

NAFINSA has operated as ‘‘second-tier’’

bank granting financing to companies

indirectly through the commercial bank,

(i.e., first-tier banks). NAFINSA longterm loans have been found to be

specific in past proceedings because

availability was limited to specific

geographical regions of Mexico. See

Bars and Shapes from Mexico Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations and Countervailing Duty

Orders 49 FR 161 (August 17, 1984).

The GOM has provided no new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances to lead us to conclude

that this program is not limited to

companies in specific regions.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

that NAFINSA long-term loans are

specific.

Since the GOM did not provide any

information on long-term interest rates,

we are using a short-term CPP based rate

as our benchmark rate in accordance

with our practices as set forth in section

355.49(b)(iii) of the Department’s

regulations. See Countervailing Duties;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, 54 FR

23366, 23384 (May 31, 1989). In past

Mexican cases, we have used the Costo

Porcentual Promedio (CPP), a short-term

interest rate, as the basis for our

benchmark. We have converted the CPP

rate into a benchmark rate using a

standard formula that has been used

consistently in past Mexican cases. See

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookingware from

Mexico; Final Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 562

(January 7, 1982). Using this

methodology, we calculated an annual

average benchmark of 29.79 percent for

the peso-denominated loans. A

comparison between the benchmark rate

and the NAFINSA loan rates indicates

that these loans are inconsistent with

commercial considerations.

To calculate the benefit, we

multiplied the difference between the

benchmark rate and the interest rate in

effect for the NAFINSA loan by the

principal outstanding during the review

period. We divided the benefit by the

firm’s total sales during the review

period and then weight-averaged the

benefit received by each company using

as the weight its share of total Mexican

exports to the United States of the

subject merchandise. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the benefit from

this program to be 0.01 percent ad

valorem for all companies.

II. Programs Preliminarily Found To Be

Not Used

We also examined the following

programs and preliminarily determined

that exporters of the subject

merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under these programs

during the review period:

(A) Other BANCOMEXT preferential

financing;

(B) Other Dollar-Denominated

Financing Programs;

(C) Fiscal Promotion Certificates

(CEPROFI);

(D) Import duty reductions and

exemptions;

(E) State tax incentives;

(F) Article 15 Loans;

(G) NAFINSA FONEI-type financing;

and

(H) NAFINSA FOGAIN-type

financing.

Preliminary Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1993,

through December 31, 1993, we

preliminarily determined the total

bounty or grant to be 0.48 percent ad

valorem for all companies. In

accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate

less than 0.5 percent ad valorem is de

minimis.

If the final results remain the same as

these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to liquidate, without

regard to countervailing duties, all

shipments of the subject merchandise

from Mexico exported on or after

January 1, 1993, and on or before

December 31, 1993.

The Department also intends to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

collect a cash deposit of estimated

countervailing duties of zero percent of

the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments

of the subject merchandise from all

companies, entered or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of the final date

of the publication of the final result of

this review.

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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 355.38(c),

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. Any hearing, if requested, will be

held seven days after the scheduled date

for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies

of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be

served on interested parties in

accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(e).

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under

§ 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 355.22.

Dated: May 10, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–12199 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of Application for an

Amendment to an Export Trade

Certificate of Review, Application No.

90–5A007.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has received an application to amend an

Export Trade Certificate of Review. This

notice summarizes the amendment and

requests comments relevant to whether

the amended Certificate should be

issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Dawn Busby, Director, Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, 202–482–5131.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. A

Certificate of Review protects the holder

and the members identified in the

Certificate from state and federal