Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 28841

Period

Canada: Raspberries, A–122–401 ................................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

France: Calcium Aluminate Flux, A–427–812 .................................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

France: Large Power Transformers, A–427–030 ............................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

France: Sugar, A–427–078 .............................................................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Germany: Industrial Belts, except Synchronous, & V belts, A–428–802 ......................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Germany: Precipitated Barium Carbonate, A–428–061 ................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Germany: Rayon Yarn, A–428–810 ................................................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Germany: Sugar, A–428–082 ........................................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Hungary: Tapered Roller Bearings, A–437–601 .............................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Italy: Large Power Transformers, A–475–031 ................................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Italy: Synchronous and V–Belts, A–475–802 ................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Japan: Fishnetting, A–588–029 ........................................................................................................................................ 6/1/95–5/31/96

Japan: Forklift Trucks, A–588–703 ................................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Japan: Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, A–588–831 ........................................................................................................ 6/1/95–5/31/96

Japan: Industrial Belts, A–588–807 .................................................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Japan: Large Power Transformers, A–588–032 .............................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Japan: Nitrile Rubber, A–588–706 ................................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

New Zealand: Kiwifruit, A–614–801 ................................................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Romania: Tapered Roller Bearings, A–485–602 ............................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

Russia: Ferrosilicon, A–821–804 ...................................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Singapore: V–Belts, A–559–803 ...................................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

South Africa: Furfuryl Alcohol, A–791–802 ...................................................................................................................... 12/16/94–5/31/96

South Korea: PET Film, A–580–807 ................................................................................................................................ 6/1/95–5/31/96

Sweden: Stainless Steel Plate, A–401–603 ..................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Taiwan: Carbon Steel Plate, A–583–080 ......................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Taiwan: Oil Country Tubular Goods, A–583–505 ............................................................................................................ 6/1/95–5/31/96

Taiwan: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A–583–816 ......................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Taiwan: Washers, A–583–820 ......................................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

The Netherlands: Aramid Fiber, A–421–805 .................................................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

The People’s Republic of China: Furfuryl Alcohol, A–570–835 ....................................................................................... 12/16/94–5/31/96

The People’s Republic of China: Silicon Metal, A–570–806 ........................................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

The People’s Republic of China: Sparklers, A–570–804 ................................................................................................. 6/1/95–5/31/96

The People’s Republic of China: Tapered Roller Bearings, A–570–601 ......................................................................... 6/1/95–5/31/96

Venezuela: Ferrosilicon, A–307–807 ................................................................................................................................ 6/1/95–5/31/96

Countervailing Duty Proceedings:

Italy: Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel, C–475–812 ........................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

In accordance with sections 353.22(a)

and 355.22(a) of the regulations, an

interested party as defined by section

353.2(k) may request in writing that the

Secretary conduct an administrative

review. The Department has changed its

requirements for requesting reviews for

countervailing duty orders. Pursuant to

19 C.F.R. 355.22(a) of the Department’s

Interim Regulations (60 FR 25137 (May

11, 1995)), an interested party must

specify the individual producers or

exporters covered by the order for

which they are requesting a review.

Therefore, for both antidumping and

countervailing duty reviews, the

interested party must specify for which

individual producers or exporters

covered by an antidumping finding or

an antidumping or countervailing duty

order it is requesting a review, and the

requesting party must state why it

desires the Secretary to review those

particular producers or exporters. If the

interested party intends for the

Secretary to review sales of merchandise

by an exporter (or a producer if that

producer also exports merchandise from

other suppliers) which were produced

in more than one country of origin, and

each country of origin is subject to a

separate order, then the interested party

must state specifically, on an order-byorder basis, which exporter(s) the

request is intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room B–099,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The

Department also asks parties to serve a

copy of their requests to the Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Attention:

Pamela Woods, in room 3065 of the

main Commerce Building. Further, in

accordance with section 353.31(g) or

355.31(g) of the regulations, a copy of

each request must be served on every

party on the Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Antidumping (Countervailing) Duty

Administrative Review,’’ for requests

received by the last day of June 1996. If

the Department does not receive, by the

last day of June 1996, a request for

review of entries covered by an order or

finding listed in this notice and for the

period identified above, the Department

will instruct the Customs Service to

assess antidumping or countervailing

duties on those entries at a rate equal to

the cash deposit of (or bond for)

estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute,

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–14311 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P–M

[C–508–605]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews.
28842 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices

SUMMARY: On March 4, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of two

administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty order on industrial

phosphoric acid from Israel. The

reviews cover the periods January 1,

1992 through December 31, 1992 and

January 1, 1993 through December 31,

1993. We have completed these reviews

and determine the net subsidy to be 3.84

ad valorem for all companies for the

period January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992, and 5.49 percent ad

valorem for all companies for the period

January 1, 1993 through December 31,

1993. We will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess countervailing duties

as indicated above.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1996.

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 March 4, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 8255) the preliminary results of two

administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty order on industrial

phosphoric acid from Israel. The

Department has now completed these

administrative reviews 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

April 2, 1996, case briefs were

submitted by the Government of Israel

(GOI) and Rotem Amfert Negev Ltd.

(Rotem), a producer of the subject

merchandise that exported industrial

phosphoric acid to the United States

during the 1992 and 1993 review

periods (respondents), and FMC

Corporation and Monsanto Company

(petitioners). On April 9, 1996, rebuttal

briefs were submitted by the

respondents and petitioners.

The reviews cover the periods January

1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 and

January 1, 1993 through December 31,

1993. Each review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise, Rotem, which accounts

for all of the exports of subject

merchandise from Israel to the United

States during the review periods, and

ten programs.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting these

administrative reviews 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. However, references to the

Department’s Countervailing Duties;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, 54 FR

23366 (May 31, 1989) (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 1989 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 Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Request for Public

Comments, 60 FR 80 (January 3, 1995);

Antidumping Duties, Countervailing

Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Request for Public Comments, 61

FR 7308 (February 27, 1996).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments of industrial phosphoric acid

(IPA) from Israel. Such merchandise is

classifiable under item number

2809.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number

is provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for

Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

Because Rotem is the only

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States,

Rotem’s net subsidy rate is also the

country-wide rate.

Privatization

Previously, we have found that a

private party purchasing all or part of a

government-owned company can repay

prior non-recurring subsidies on behalf

of the company as part or all of the sales

price. Accordingly, in the preliminary

results, we calculated a ratio

representing the amount of subsidies

remaining with Rotem after each partial

privatization in 1992 and 1993. To

calculate the benefit provided to Rotem

in 1992 and 1993, we multiplied the

benefit calculated for Encouragement of

Capital Investment Law grants (the only

non-recurring allocable subsidies) for

each period by the ratio representing the

amount of subsidies remaining with

Rotem after the partial privatization.

Our analysis of the comments submitted

by the interested parties, summarized

below, has not led us to reconsider our

methodology from the preliminary

results.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon our analysis of the

questionnaire response, verification,

and written comments from the

interested parties we determine the

following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Encouragement of Capital

Investments Law (ECIL) Grants

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to reconsider our findings in the

preliminary results. On this basis, the

net subsidy for this program is 3.82

percent ad valorem for 1992 and 5.47

percent ad valorem for 1993.

B. Long-term Industrial Development

Loans

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. We received no comments

on our preliminary results and our

findings remain unchanged in these

final results. On this basis, the net

subsidy for this program is 0.01 percent

ad valorem for 1992 and less than 0.005

percent ad valorem for 1993.

C. Exchange Rate Risk Insurance

Scheme

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to reconsider our findings in the

preliminary results. On this basis, the

net subsidy for this program is zero for

1992 and 0.02 percent ad valorem for

1993.

D. Encouragement of Industrial

Research and Development Grants

(EIRD)

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise for the 1992 review period.

We received no comments on our

preliminary results and our findings

remain unchanged in these final results.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 28843

On this basis, the net subsidy for this

program is less than 0.005 percent ad

valorem for 1992.

II. Program Not Conferring Subsidies

Law for the Encouragement of the

Business Sector (Absorption of Workers)

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program did not confer

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. Since we received no

comments on our preliminary results,

our findings remain unchanged in these

final results.

III. Programs Found Not To Be Used

We determine that Rotem did not

apply for or receive benefits under the

following programs during the 1992 and

1993 review periods:

A. Reduced Tax Rates under ECIL;

B. ECIL Section 24 Loans:

C. Preferential Accelerated

Depreciation under ECIL;

D. Labor Training Grants; and

E. Dividends and Interest Tax Benefits

under Section 46 of the ECIL.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: Petitioners argue that the

Department was incorrect in treating a

portion of the price paid by the public

for shares in Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL),

the parent company of Rotem

Fertilizers, Ltd., as partial repayment of

prior non-recurring subsidies.

According to the petitioners, Rotem

clearly received subsidies that are

actionable under U.S. countervailing

duty law, and nothing happened in the

partial privatizations that in any way

reduced or diminished those subsidies.

Rotem was the same company after the

partial privatization of ICL; the only

change that occurred as a result of

privatization was in the makeup of the

shareholders of ICL.

To support their argument, petitioners

point out that the Court of International

Trade (CIT) recently ruled on

privatization accomplished through the

sale of stock. In British Steel PLC v.

United States, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1277

(1995) (British Steel), the CIT stated that

‘‘* * * when a bona fide purchaser in

an arm’s length transaction buys all or

some of the stock of a governmentowned corporation, none of the subsidy

is repaid by that purchase.’’ Under the

CIT’s analysis in British Steel, state

petitioners, there clearly should be no

reduction in prior subsidies paid to

Rotem as a result of the so-called partial

privatization.

Petitioners continue that the

Department’s justification for treating a

part of the price paid for government

shares in a privatization as a repayment

of prior subsidies is based in large part

on the ‘‘theory,’’ elaborated upon in the

Final Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Steel Products

from Austria, 58 FR 37262 (July 9, 1993)

(General Issues Appendix), that the new

private shareholders will operate the

newly privatized company differently

from the way in which the government

operated the old ‘‘subsidized’’ company.

Much of this rationale is, in petitioners’

view, highly speculative. Whatever

factors motivated private parties to

invest in ICL, those parties have no

ability to change or affect the

management or business operations of

ICL, since the GOI still owns 75 percent

of the outstanding shares and maintains

absolute authority over fundamental

corporate decisions. In conclusion, the

Department should make no adjustment

for any so-called subsidy ‘‘repayments.’’

In rebuttal, the respondents state that

the Department’s repayment

methodology was upheld in a recent

decision by the Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Saarstahl v.

United States, Slip Op. 94–1457, –1475

(Fed. Cir., March 12, 1996). The CAFC

observed that, ‘‘in the absence of

explicit mandates [from Congress],

Commerce’s approach must be accorded

deference.’’ Also, according to

respondents, the petitioners’’ reliance

on British Steel to support their position

is misplaced. To the extent that one

judge on the CIT may disagree with the

Department’s repayment methodology,

that disagreement is overridden by the

CAFC’s ruling in Saarstahl, which

affirmed the Department’s repayment

methodology. As a result, according to

respondents, the petitioners’ arguments

should be disregarded.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with petitioners. The Department’s

position on privatization was recently

upheld by the CAFC in its Saarstahl

decision, where the court affirmed the

Department’s position that privatization

does not as a matter of law extinguish

prior subsidies. We are also not

deferring to the CIT’s decision in British

Steel because it does not represent a

final and conclusive court decision and

may yet be appealed. Moreover, neither

the CAFC nor the CIT specifically

addressed the issue of the Department’s

repayment methodology. Accordingly,

we are following our privatization and

repayment methodology outlined in the

General Issues Appendix.

Comment 2: The respondents state

that the Department calculated separate

‘‘shares of subsidies remaining after

privatization’’ for 1992 and 1993 and

then applied those separate calculations

to each year’s subsidies. Thus, for 1992,

the Department multiplied the ECIL

grants by 94.55 percent and for 1993, by

98.80 percent. Respondents believe that

this method overstates the share of

subsidies remaining after privatization

for 1993. The percentages should be

applied cumulatively, not separately.

Accordingly, state respondents, the

effect of privatization is cumulative. For

1993, therefore, the share of subsidies

remaining should be 98.90 x 94.55, or

92.73 percent. Thus, the Department

should use 92.73 percent to calculate

the share of subsidies remaining.

Department’s Position: In our

calculations of the subsidies remaining

after the 1993 privatization, we have

taken into account the reduction of

subsidies which occurred as the result

of the 1992 privatization. We first

multiplied each allocated non-recurring

subsidy amount by 94.55 percent, the

percentage of subsidies remaining after

the 1992 privatization. These adjusted

grant amounts were summed for the

1993 period, and multiplied by 98.80

percent, which is the share of subsidies

remaining after the 1993 privatization.

As a result, the Department properly

accounted for both the 1992 and 1993

repayment of subsidies as a result of

privatization.

Comment 3: The respondents state

that the Department did not take into

account the depreciation of the shekel

in its calculation of the benefit from the

ECIL grants. Since Rotem keeps its

records in dollar terms (the grants are

issued in shekels), the respondents

argue that the calculation should take

the erosion of the shekel into account.

According to the respondents, the

calculation should include the portion

of principal allocated to a particular

year plus dollar-linkage differences on

that principal from the date the grant

was received. Otherwise, the

respondents conclude that the

Department’s methodology overstates

the benefits from the grants. Finally, to

avoid double-counting the portion of

benefit derived from the dollar-linkage,

which has already been accounted for

according to the present formula, this

methodology should apply only to

grants from 1993 forward.

The petitioners contend that the

respondents’ argument ignores the

Department’s long-standing practice of

not reevaluating its allocation of nonrecurring subsidies over time based

upon subsequent events. Depreciation

(or, for that matter, appreciation) of the

Israeli shekel is clearly one of the kinds

of ‘‘subsequent events in the

marketplace’’ that should not be taken

into account in determining and

allocating the net subsidy received by

Rotem from non-recurring grants.

Accordingly, petitioners state that
28844 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices

Rotem’s so-called ‘‘linkage’’ argument

must be rejected.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondents. Rotem received the

ECIL grants in shekels and the

Department appropriately allocated the

grant amounts to the review periods

according to our variable rate grant

methodology, which accounted for the

hyperinflation rates that existed in Israel

when some of the grants were provided.

See Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination: Certain Carbon

Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from

Israel, 60 FR 10569 (February 27, 1995).

The fact that Rotem records the grant

values in their books in dollars is

irrelevant. As we explained in the

General Issues Appendix at 37,263, ‘‘the

countervailable subsidy (and the

amount of the subsidy to be allocated

over time) is fixed at the time the

government provides the subsidy.’’ We

continued that ‘‘the statute does not

permit the amount of the subsidy,

including the allocated subsidy stream,

to be reevaluated based upon

subsequent events in the marketplace.’’

Id. As a result, we cannot alter our grant

allocations based on the fluctuations in

the value of the shekel against the U.S.

dollar.

Comment 4: Respondents argue that

the Department’s calculation

methodology ignores the fact that

Rotem’s fixed assets are reduced for tax

purposes by the value of the grants.

Thus, respondents argue, because the

true value of the grants is eroded by a

concomitant tax increase, the grant

benefit should be reduced by 36

percent, the current tax rate.

Petitioners argue that the tax impact

of the subsidy received by Rotem is

irrelevant and that Rotem’s argument to

have the tax impact considered is

flawed because it seeks to have the

Department consider subsequent

economic events. Petitioners state that

the critical factor in countervailing duty

law is not subsequent economic impact

or continuing competitive benefit, but

rather the receipt of a subsidy.

Therefore, petitioners argue, the tax

effect should not be considered.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondents. In calculating the

amount of a countervailable benefit, the

Department’s long-standing practice is

to ignore the secondary tax

consequences of the benefit. See

§ 355.46(b) of the 1989 Proposed

Regulations. See also, e.g., Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

from Belgium, 58 FR 37273 (July 9,

1993), and, Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination;

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from

Norway, 56 FR 7678 (February 25,

1991). Thus, the tax effect of the grants

received by Rotem is not pertinent to

the Department’s calculation of the

benefit.

Comment 5: Respondents argue that

the Department’s rounding of the

countervailing duty rates in the 1992

and 1993 reviews is either inconsistent

or incorrect. Rotem’s rate for 1992, 3.84

percent, is rounded to two decimal

places. In contrast, Rotem’s rate for

1993, 5.50 percent, is either rounded to

only one decimal place, or incorrectly

rounded to two decimal places from

5.494 percent. Therefore, respondents

argue that the Department change either

the 1992 rate to 3.8 percent, or the 1993

rate to 5.49 percent.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the respondents. We have now

accurately rounded the rate for the 1993

review to be 5.49 percent.

Comment 6: Respondents argue that

the benefit rate from the Exchange Rate

Risk Insurance Scheme (EIS) should not

be included in the cash deposit rate

because the program was terminated in

1993. Respondents point to information

submitted by the GOI in the

questionnaire response demonstrating

that the EIS was terminated in 1993.

Petitioners rebut that Rotem’s receipt

of residual EIS benefits will depend on

such variables as the date of export

shipment, the date of delivery, the date

of payment, and the length of time

necessary for EIS processing and

payment. According to petitioners, in

view of these uncertainties, which

preclude the determination of a fixed

date for the actual termination of EIS

benefits to Rotem, the Department

should continue to include EIS benefits

in the cash deposit rate.

Department’s Position: The

Department’s practice, as outlined in

section 355.50(d)(1)(2) of the 1989

Proposed Regulations, is not to adjust

the cash deposit rate when it determines

that residual benefits may continue to

be bestowed under a terminated

program. The Department noted in the

1991 review of IPA from Israel that the

EIS was terminated in 1993. See

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, 59 FR 5176

(February 3, 1994). In that review, we

included the rate from the EIS in the

cash deposit rate because residual

benefits continued to be available. The

Department has verified that the GOI

will continue to honor outstanding

claims as long as they are made within

three years of the date of export. See,

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Carbon Steel

Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Israel, 60

FR 10573 (February 27, 1995).

Therefore, because residual benefits

continue to be available under this

program, we have not adjusted the cash

deposit rate.

Final Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1992

through December 31, 1992, we

determine the net subsidy to be 3.84

percent ad valorem for all firms. For the

period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993, we determine the

net subsidy to be 5.49 percent ad

valorem for all firms.

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess the following

countervailing duties:

Manufacturer/exporter Period Rate

All companies ... 1992 ................. 3.84

All companies ... 1993 ................. 5.49

The Department will also instruct the

U.S. Customs Service to collect a cash

deposit of estimated countervailing

duties, as provided by section 751(a)(1)

of the Act, of 5.49 percent of the f.o.b.

invoice price on all shipments of the

subject merchandise from Israel entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of this

review.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 355.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

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 23, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14155 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P