Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices 19021

Individual differences between USP and

FMV may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of these final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise, entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for the reviewed company

will be the rate as listed; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) cash deposits

for all other manufacturers or exporters

will be 20.12 percent. This is the ‘‘new

shipper’’ rate established during the first

final results published by the

Department in the Federal Register on

February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6681). We

have determined that this rate is the

appropriate rate, because we are unable

to ascertain the ‘‘all others’’ rate from

the Treasury less-than-fair-value

investigation. These deposit

requirements shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibilities concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

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 353.22.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9274 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–201–003]

Ceramic Tile From Mexico; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on ceramic

tile from Mexico (59 FR 56057) for the

period January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992. We have now

completed this review and determine

the total bounty or grant to be zero or

de minimis for 32 companies, 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. We will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 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 November 10, 1994, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (59 FR 56057) the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the countervailing duty order on

ceramic tile from Mexico (47 FR 20012;

May 10, 1982). The Department has now

completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

We invited interested parties to

comment on the preliminary results. On

December 12, 1994, a case brief was

submitted by Ceramica Regiomontana,

S.A., a producer of the subject

merchandise which exported ceramic

tile to the United States during the

review period (respondent).

The review period is January 1, 1992,

through December 31, 1992. This review

involves 33 companies and the

following programs:

(1) BANCOMEXT Financing for

Exporters;

(2) The Program for Temporary

Importation of Products used in the

Production of Exports (PITEX);

(3) Other BANCOMEXT preferential

financing;

(4) Other Dollar-Denominated Financing

Programs;

(5) Fiscal Promotion Certificates

(CEPROFI);

(6) Import duty reductions and

exemptions;

(7) State tax incentives;

(8) Article 15 Loans;

(9) NAFINSA FONEI-type financing;

and

(10) NAFINSA FOGAIN-type financing.

In accordance with the recent Court of

International Trade (CIT) decision in

Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. et al. v.

United States, Slip Op. 94–74, the

Department is changing the rate of 2.55

percent ad valorem preliminarily

assigned to Ceramica Regiomontana to

the country-wide rate of 2.08 percent ad

valorem.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of 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 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 total 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 using as

the weight its share of total Mexican

exports to the United States of the
19022 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices

subject merchandise, including all

companies, even those with de minimis

and zero rates. We then summed the

individual companies’ weighted-average

rate to determine the total bounty or

grant from all programs benefitting

exports of the subject merchandise to

the United States.

Since the country-wide rate

calculated using this methodology was

above de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR

355.7(1994), we proceeded to the next

step, and examined the total bounty or

grant calculated for each company to

determine whether individual company

rates differed significantly from the

weighted-average country-wide rate,

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). Thirtytwo companies had a significantly

different total bounty or grant during the

review period pursuant to 19 CFR

355.22(d)(3). Accordingly, these

companies are treated separately for

assessment and cash deposit purposes.

All other companies are assigned the

country-wide rate.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1. As in past reviews,

Ceramica Regiomontana contends that

the Department does not have the legal

authority to assess countervailing duties

on ceramic tile from Mexico and must

terminate the review. Effective April 23,

1985, the date of the ‘‘Understanding

Between the United States and Mexico

regarding Subsidies and Countervailing

Duties’’ (the Understanding), Mexico

became a ‘‘country under the

Agreement.’’ Therefore, Ceramica

Regiomontana argues that 19 U.S.C.

1671 requires an affirmative injury

determination as a prerequisite to the

imposition of countervailing duties on

any Mexican merchandise imported on

or after April 23, 1985. Furthermore,

Ceramica Regiomontana argues that the

only applicable statutory authority for

this review would be 19 U.S.C. 1303;

however, because Mexico became a

country under the Agreement, the

provisions of section 1303 could no

longer apply. Therefore, Ceramica

Regiomontana maintains the

Department has no authority to conduct

this review and the review should be

terminated.

Department’s Position. We fully

addressed this issue in a previous

administrative review of this

countervailing duty order. See Ceramic

Tile from Mexico; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (55 FR 50744; December 10,

1990). The CIT and the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal

Circuit) have sustained the

Department’s legal position that

Mexican imports subject to an

outstanding countervailing duty order

already in effect when Mexico entered

into the Understanding are not entitled

to an injury test pursuant to section 701

of the Act and paragraph 5 of the

Understanding (Ceramica

Regiomontana, S.A., et. al v. United

States, Slip Op. 96–78, Court No. 89–

06–00323 (May 5, 1994) (Ceramica

Regiomontana’’); Cementos Anajuac del

Golfo, S.A. v. U.S., 879 F.2d 847 (Fed.

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.CT. 1318

(1989)). The countervailing duty order

on ceramic tile from Mexico was

published prior to Mexico’s entering

into the Understanding and, therefore,

imports of ceramic tile are not entitled

to an injury test pursuant to section 701

of the Act.

Comment 2. Ceramica Regiomontana

argues that the Department failed to

include zero or de minimis companies

in calculating the country-wide subsidy

rate. Ceramica Regiomontana maintains

that the Federal Circuit has ruled on this

issue in Ipsco, Inc. v. United States

(Ipsco), 899 F.2d 1192, 1197 (Fed. Cir.

1990), and the Department is required to

follow this ruling. According to

Ceramica Regiomontana, the Federal

Circuit’s interpretation of Ipsco is that

‘‘the country-wide countervailing duty

rate calculation should be made

inclusive of those companies receiving

no benefit or de minimis in instances

where such methodology would result

in a zero or de minimis rate as well as

in instances where the country-wide

countervailing duty rate is greater than

de minimis.’’ Ceramica Regiomontana

also argues that the CIT has recently

affirmed the Ipsco decision in Ceramica

Regiomontana, and that the Department

should follow the CIT’s holdings by

including de minimis and zero

companies in the calculation of the

country-wide rate.

Department’s Position. We agree that,

pursuant to the CIT’s holding in

Ceramica Regiomontana, de minimis

and zero rate companies should be

included in the calculation of the

country-wide rate. Accordingly, all 33

companies covered by this

administrative review have been

included in the calculation of the

country-wide rate as stated in the above

section of this notice concerning

calculation methodology for assessment

and cash deposit purposes. In

accordance with the recent CIT decision

in Ceramica Regiomontana, we are thus

assigning the country-wide rate of 2.08

percent ad valorem to Ceramica

Regiomontana.

Comment 3. As in past administrative

reviews, Ceramica Regiomontana

contends that the Department

incorrectly treated the benefit from the

PITEX program as a grant. According to

Ceramica Regiomontana, PITEX benefits

should be calculated as interest-free

loans similar to the Department’s

treatment of loan duty deferrals under a

Peruvian program in Cotton Sheeting

and Sateen from Peru; Final Results of

Administrative Review of Countervailing

Duty Order (49 FR 34542).

Ceramica Regiomontana contends that

the Department provides no legal

justification for refusing to treat PITEX

as an interest-free loan rather than a

grant in Certain Textile Mill Products

from Mexico; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (56 FR 50858). Furthermore,

Ceramica Regiomontana argues that the

Department ‘‘bases its refusal to

calculate PITEX as an interest-free loan

on the difficulty of doing the

calculation.’’ Ceramica Regiomontana

maintains that although there is no

certainty whether a company will

ultimately be exempt from payment of

all or a portion of the duty, the deferral

should be treated as a loan rather than

a grant in accordance with legal

requirements.

Department’s Position. We fully

addressed this issue in the previous

administrative review of this case. See

Ceramic Tile from Mexico; Final Results

of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (57 FR 24247; June 8, 1992).

Under PITEX, an exporter may

temporarily import machinery for five

years. At the end of five years, the

exporter can renew the temporary stay

on an annual basis indefinitely. Since

payment of import duties upon

conversion to permanent import status

is based on the depreciated value of the

equipment at the time it is converted to

permanent import status, the exporter

can continue the temporary import

status until the depreciated value of the

equipment is zero and no import duties

are owed. Therefore, duty exemptions

under PITEX are properly treated as

grants, and we expensed them in full at

the time of importation, when the

exporters otherwise would have paid

duties on the imported machinery. Id.;

Final Negative Countervailing Duty

Determination; Silicon Metal From

Brazil (56 FR 26988). Ceramica

Regiomontana has presented us with no

new evidence or arguments on this

issue.

Comment 4. Ceramica Regiomontana

argues that the calculation of the PITEX

net subsidy is incorrect, because the

Department improperly divided the

PITEX benefit by each company’s total

exports. Ceramica Regiomontana

contends that since the machinery

imported under the PITEX program may

be used to produce products for both the
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