Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices 19023

export and domestic markets, the

benefits from the program should be

divided by total sales rather than by

total exports. Furthermore, Ceramica

Regiomontana argues that the program

does not limit the use of imported

machinery to production for export

products only. According to Ceramica

Regiomontana, machinery imported by

the company is used for production of

merchandise for both export and

domestic markets. Ceramica

Regiomontana claims that the

Department’s allocation method in

PITEX is incorrect because it does not

measure the benefit of the subsidy to the

recipient and the proper method of

allocation would be based on total sales.

Department’s Position. We disagree.

In order to meet the eligibility criteria

for the PITEX program, a company is

required to have a proven export record,

and to use the imported merchandise

(both raw materials and equipment) in

the production of goods for export.

Since receipt of benefits under PITEX is

tied to the company’s exports, thereby

making the program an export subsidy,

the proper basis for allocation of these

benefits is total exports, as opposed to

total sales. See Certain Textile Mill

Products from Mexico; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (56 FR 12175, 12178; March 22,

1991).

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine the total bounty or grant to be

zero or de minimis for the following 32

companies during the 1992 review

period and 2.08 percent ad valorem for

all other companies. In accordance with

19 CFR 355.7, any rate less than 0.5

percent ad valorem is de minimis.

(1) Adrian Sifuentes Jimenez.

(2) Agustin Cedillo Ruiz.

(3) Alejandro Estrada Silva.

(4) Apolonio Arias Vasquez.

(5) Arturo Leija Lucio.

(6) Aurelio Cedillo Ruiz.

(7) Azuelejos Decorativos Carrillo, S.A.

(8) Efrain Medina Carrillo.

(9) Emilio Pacheco.

(10) Faustino Nuncio Silva.

(11) Ima Regiomontana, S.A. de C.V.

(12) Industrias Intercontinental, S.A. de

C.V.

(13) Internacional de Ceramica, S.A. de

C.V.

(14) Javier Leija Lucio.

(15) Jesus Gallegos Loivares.

(16) Jesus Jimenez Lucio.

(17) Jose Arellano Valdez.

(18) Jose Dolores Hernandez.

(19) Jose Silva Romero.

(20) Juan Cortez Coronel.

(21) Leopoldo Montiel Rincon.

(22) Luis Najera Flores.

(23) Luis Paulino Flores.

(24) Norberto Cuellar Zuniga.

(25) O.H. Internacional, S.A. de C.V.

(26) Pedro Lopez Alonso.

(27) Raul Leija.

(28) Recubrimientos Mezquital, S.A. de

C.V.

(29) Ricardo Berrones.

(30) Taller de Azuelejos Coloniales.

(31) Vicente Jalomo Reyna.

(32) Zenon Cortez Coronel.

Therefore, the Department will

instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate, without regard to

countervailing duties, entries of the

subject merchandise from Mexico

exported by the 32 companies listed

above for the period on or after January

1, 1992, and on or before December 31,

1992, and to assess countervailing

duties of 2.08 percent of the f.o.b.

invoice price of shipments from all

other companies for the same period.

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to collect cash deposits

of zero estimated countervailing duties

for the 32 companies listed above and

2.08 percent ad valorem estimated

countervailing duties, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act, on

shipments of this merchandise from all

other companies entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice. This deposit requirement shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR

355.22 and 19 CFR 355.25.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9275 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–201–001]

Leather Wearing Apparel from Mexico;

Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances countervailing

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: On February 13, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its changed circumstances

countervailing duty administrative

review. We examined whether

Maquiladora Pieles Pitic, S.A. de C.V.

(MPP) and Finapiel de Mexico, S.A. de

C.V. (Finapiel), two manufacturers/

exporters of leather wearing apparel

from Mexico to the United States, had

received bounties or grants during the

first three quarters of 1994. We have

now completed this review and

determine that neither company

received bounties or grants during this

time period under any programs

previously found countervailable, and,

consequently, their cash deposit rate

should be zero.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Albright or Cameron Cardozo,

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 August 25, 1994, the Department

published the final results of the last

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on leather

wearing apparel from Mexico, covering

the January 1, 1992 through December

31, 1992 review period (46 FR 21357;

April 10, 1981). In that review, 65

companies which the Government of

Mexico (GOM) certified did not receive

benefits from the programs under

review received a cash deposit rate of

zero. All other companies, which did

not respond to our questionnaire,

including MPP and Finapiel, received a

cash deposit rate of 13.35 percent based

on best information available.

On December 1, 1994, the GOM

requested a changed circumstances

review to examine the cash deposit rate

applicable to MPP and Finapiel. In its

request, the GOM stated that MPP and

Finapiel were excluded from the list of

GOM-certified zero-benefit recipients

submitted to the Department in the

recently completed administrative

review due to an oversight by the GOM.

With its request, the GOM provided

company and government certifications

that MPP and Finapiel did not apply for

or receive any net subsidy during the

first three quarters of 1994 from the

programs that were previously found

countervailable or not-used, and will

not apply for or receive any such net

subsidy in the future, in accordance

with 19 CFR 355.22(a)(2)(1994). The

GOM also stated that it has taken steps

to ensure that the type of oversight

which occurred in this case will not be
19024 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices

repeated in future administrative

reviews.

On December 21, 1994 (59 FR 65755),

the Department initiated a changed

circumstances review to examine the

cash deposit rate for MPP and Finapiel.

On February 13, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of its changed

circumstances countervailing duty

administrative review on leather

wearing apparel from Mexico (60 FR

8221). We have now completed this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act). The review covers the period

January 1, 1994 through September 30,

1994, two manufacturers/exporters, and

the following programs:

(A) BANCOMEXT Loans and Export

Financing

(B) Certificates of Fiscal Promotion

(CEPROFI)

(C) FOGAIN

(D) FONEI

(E) State Tax Incentives

(F) PITEX

(G) Import Duty Reductions and

Exemptions

(H) Article 15 Loans

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of Mexican leather wearing

apparel. These products include leather

coats and jackets for men, boys, women,

girls, and infants, and other leather

apparel products including leather

vests, pants, and shorts. Also included

are outer leather shells and parts and

pieces of leather wearing apparel. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 4203.10.4030,

4203.10.4060, 4203.10.4085 and

4203.10.4095. The HTS item numbers

are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Act and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received no

comments.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have

determined that, during the first three

quarters of 1994, MPP and Finapiel did

not use any of the programs examined

in the last administrative review of this

order (59 FR 43815; August 25, 1994),

and therefore their cash deposit rate

should be zero.

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to continue to suspend

liquidation and to collect zero cash

deposits of estimated countervailing

duties, as provided by the Act, on

shipments of Mexican leather wearing

apparel from MPP and Finapiel

exported on or after the date of

publication of this notice of final results

of review. These instructions shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This changed circumstances review

and notice are in accordance with

section 751(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(b)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22(h).

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9276 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

Textile Exporters’ Forum; Notice of

Open Meeting

A Textile Exporters’ Forum will be

held on April 27, 1995. The meeting

will be from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the

Main Conference Room on the sixth

floor at the office of Milliken &

Company, 1045 6th Avenue, New York,

New York.

The Forum is sponsored by the

Department of Commerce to discuss

textile and apparel export issues.

Agenda: The Textile Export

Management Company (TEXPORT) and

working with Export Trading

Companies; the status of Electronic

Sourcing for the Textile and Apparel

Industry; the Economic Outlook for the

Textile and Apparel Industry; and the

Office of Textiles and Apparel Export

Expansion Program.

The meeting will be open to the

public with a limited number of seats

available. For further information or

copies of the minutes, contact William

Dawson (202/482–5155).

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Rita D. Hayes,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 95–9217 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 738]

Pursuant to Its Authority Under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as Amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) Adopts the following Order:

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status,

Gleason Corporation (Gear Production

Equipment), Rochester, New York

Whereas, by an Act of Congress

approved June 18, 1934, an Act ‘‘To

provide for the establishment . . . of

foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of

the United States, to expedite and

encourage foreign commerce, and for

other purposes,’’ as amended (19 U.S.C.

81a–81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade

Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to

grant to qualified corporations the

privilege of establishing foreign-trade

zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs

ports of entry;

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15

CFR Part 400) provide for the

establishment of special-purpose

subzones when existing zone facilities

cannot serve the specific use involved;

Whereas, an application from the

County of Monroe, New York, grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 141, for authority to

establish special-purpose subzone status

at the gear production equipment

manufacturing plant of the Gleason

Corporation in Rochester, New York,

was filed by the Board on March 28,

1994, and notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register (FTZ Docket 14–94, 59 FR

17511, 4–13–94); and,

Whereas, the Board has found that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that approval of the application is in the

public interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

authorizes the establishment of a

subzone (Subzone 141D) at the Gleason

Corporation plant in Rochester, New

York, at the location described in the

application, subject to the FTZ Act and

the Board’s regulations, including

§ 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of

April 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

Attest: John J. Da Ponte, Jr., Executive

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9273 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P