Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2797

certain home market wholesalers/

distributors because Rautaruukki’s

computer tape reported these rebates to

a different number of home market

wholesalers/distributors than were

identified in the narrative response.

Respondent argues that part of this

discrepancy is explained by the fact that

certain companies merged. Respondent

also argues that although certain home

market wholesalers/distributors were

not specifically identified in the

narrative response, Rautaruukki did

submit the relevant information in the

home market sales database.

Accordingly respondent argues the

Department should allow the

adjustment.

The petitioners argue that the denial

of these rebates was correct. Petitioners

note that the Department verified the

number of companies that received this

rebate as reported in the narrative

response, not as reported in the home

market sales tape. Accordingly,

petitioners maintain Rautaruukki’s

argument adds nothing new to this

issue—their brief cites to no evidence

on the record that one of the companies

received the rebate, and Rautaruukki

admits that it never specifically

identified another company in its

narrative response. Therefore,

petitioners argue the Department should

continue to exclude the rebate amounts

on sales to certain companies in the

final results.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent that the Department should

allow all rebates. Although Rautaruukki

did not specifically address all rebates

in its narrative, they did report all the

rebates in their database. After further

examination of the verification exhibits,

we have determined that all rebates

were accurately reported and verified by

the Department and that all these parties

did receive the rebates as reported.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have

determined that no margin exists for

Rautaruukki Oy for the period February

4, 1993, through July 31, 1994.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and foreign market

value 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 this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of plate from

Finland entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

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

deposit rates for the reviewed company

will be the rate for that firm as stated

above; (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, or the original LTFV

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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review, the cash rate will

be 32.25 percent. This is the ‘‘all others’’

rate from the LTFV investigation. See

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, 58 FR

37122 (July 9, 1993). These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under section 353.26 of the

Department’s regulations 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 the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also 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 section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

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 this

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1456 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–401]

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Thailand; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review on Certain Yarn Products

covered under the Suspended

Investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand.

SUMMARY: On August 2, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review of Certain Yarn

Products covered under the agreement

suspending the countervailing duty

investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand for the period

May 18, 1992 through December 31,

1993 (suspension agreement). We have

completed this review and have

determined that the signatories were not

in violation of the suspension

agreement. However, we note that the

Department will require that four

signatories repay the Royal Thai

Government (RTG), in an annual

adjustment, the amount by which all tax

certificates received exceeded the

import duties on physically

incorporated inputs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Yarbrough or Jim Doyle, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone (202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 23, 1990, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (55 FR 48885) a notice

terminating in part the suspension

agreement on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand (50 FR 9837,

March 12, 1985). On May 9, 1992, the

Court of International Trade (CIT) held

that the Department’s termination was

not in accordance with the law because

the Department failed to strictly follow

19 CFR 355.25(d)(4). The Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

affirmed the decision of the CIT on

October 12, 1993, and instructed the

Department to reinstate the suspension

agreement. Subsequently, on October

22, 1993, the Department reinstated the

suspension agreement, effective May 18,
2798 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

1992, the date the Department

published notice of the CIT decision (58

FR 54552).

On March 4, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 10368)

of the suspended investigation for the

period May 18, 1992 to December 31,

1993. The Department received requests

for an administrative review of certain

yarn products on March 31, 1994, from

the American Yarn Spinners

Association (AYSA) and certain

individual yarn producers. On April 15,

1994, the Department initiated a

countervailing duty administrative

review on Certain Yarn Products for the

period May 18, 1992 to December 31,

1993 (59 FR 18099, April 15, 1994). The

Department verified the responses of the

RTG and the Thai Textile Manufacturers

Association (TTMA) from January 16

through January 25, 1995 pursuant to

the administrative review.

On August 2, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 39363) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of certain yarn

products. We invited interested parties

to comment on the preliminary results.

On August 14, 1995, a case brief was

submitted by Economic Consulting

Services (ECS), a representative for the

AYSA and individual member

companies of the AYSA.

The Department has now completed

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

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

The review covers nine programs and

eight producers/exporters: Saha Union,

Venus Thread, Union Thread, Union

Spinning, Thai Melon, Thai American,

Thai Blanket, and Thai Synthetic.

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 certain yarns from

Thailand. During the period of review,

such merchandise was classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 5204.11.0000,

5204.19.0000, 5204.20.0000,

5206.21.0000, 5206.22.0000,

5206.23.0000, 5206.24.0000,

5206.25.0000, 5206.41.0000,

5206.42.0000, 5206.43.0000,

5206.44.0000, 5206.45.0000,

5207.10.0000, 5207.90.0000,

5401.10.0000, 5402.31.3000,

5402.32.3000, 5402.33.6000,

5406.10.0020, 5406.10.0040,

5406.10.0090, 5508.20.0000,

5510.12.0000, 5510.90.4000, and

5511.30.0000.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon our analysis of the

responses to our questionnaire and

verification, we determine the

following:

I. Programs Found To Be Used

A. Tax Certificates

Under Section II (c) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

can apply or receive tax certificates on

shipments of subject merchandise

exported directly or indirectly to the

United States for import duties paid on

items that are physically incorporated

into exported products. If the producers

and exporters apply for tax certificates

in excess of the items physically

incorporated, the suspension agreement

requires that the producers and

exporters repay to the RTG, in an annual

adjustment, the amount by which the

tax certificates exceed the import duties

on physically incorporated inputs.

Tax certificate applications are made

on a shipment by shipment basis after

the producer/exporter receives payment

for its shipment. The application can

include up to 10 shipments and must be

submitted within one year of the

shipment date. Exporters can apply for

an extension if they do not meet the one

year deadline.

The law governing this program is the

‘‘Tax and Duty Compensation of

Exported Goods Produced in the

Kingdom Act, B.E. 2524 (1981).’’

Effective January 1, 1992, new nominal

rebate rates were established for all

products by the Committee on Tax and

Duty Rebates for Exported Goods

Produced in the Kingdom. The new

nominal rates applicable to signatories

are categorized by the following sectors:

spinning, weaving, made-up textile

goods, and knitting. Because nominal

rates are in excess of duties pertaining

to physically incorporated inputs, the

Department has calculated, and

requested that the RTG implement nonexcessive rates. See verification report

dated September 15, 1994, and letter

from Roland L. MacDonald to Arthur J.

Lafave III dated November 15, 1994.

In the preliminary results, we found

that Thai Melon, Thai American, Thai

Synthetic, and Thai Blanket applied for

tax certificates on subject merchandise

to the United States at nominal rates

during the POR. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings in the

preliminary results. On this basis, the

Department will require that these

companies repay the RTG, in an annual

adjustment, the amount by which the

tax certificates exceed the import duties

on physically incorporated inputs.

B. Export Packing Credits

Under Section II (a) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

are not to apply for, or receive, Export

Packing Credits (EPCs) from the Bank of

Thailand (BOT) that permit the

rediscounting of promissory notes

arising from shipments of subject

merchandise to the United States.

EPCs are pre-shipment short-term

loans available to exporters for a

maximum of 180 days from the date of

issuance. Under the EPC program,

commercial banks issue loans based on

promissory notes from creditworthy

exporters. Such notes have to be

supported by an irrevocable letter of

credit, a sales contract, a purchase

order, or a warehouse receipt. The

commercial bank will then resell 50% of

the promissory note to the BOT at a

lower interest rate. The maximum

interest rate a commercial bank can

charge the exporter is 10% per annum.

If an exporter does not fulfill the

contract by the due date of the EPC, the

BOT will automatically charge the

commercial bank a penalty interest rate.

The commercial bank will then pass this

penalty onto the exporter. The penalty

interest rate is 6.5% per annum

calculated over the full term of the loan.

However, penalties can be refunded if

the exporter ships the merchandise

within 60 days after the due date. If only

a portion of the goods is shipped by the

due date, the exporter receives a partial

refund in proportion to the value of the

goods shipped.

In the preliminary results, we found

that Thai Melon and Thai American

used this program for exports of subject

merchandise to the United States. Our

analysis of the comments submitted by

the interested parties, summarized

below, has not led us to change our

findings in the preliminary results. On

this basis, the net subsidy received on

EPCs for this administrative review is

0.19%.

C. International Trade Promotion Fund

Under Section II (h) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

are to notify the Department in writing

prior to applying for or accepting any

new benefit which is, or is likely to be,

a countervailable bounty or grant on

shipments of subject merchandise
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2799

exported, directly or indirectly, to the

United States. Although the Department

has never determined this program to be

countervailable, we reviewed this

program in the administrative review.

This program, governed by the ‘‘Rule

on Administration of the International

Trade Promotion Fund (ITPF), B.E. 2532

(1989),’’ promotes and develops Thai

exports worldwide through incoming

and outgoing trade missions. The ITPF

provides training and seminars for

exporters, and publicity through public

advertisements.

In the preliminary results, we

confirmed that Saha Union and its

relateds (Union Spinning, Union

Thread, and Venus Thread) participated

in an international trade fair, promoting

subject merchandise. However, Saha

Union and its related companies paid

their own expenses to participate in the

trade fair. Thus, the signatories were not

found to be in violation of the

agreement. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings in the

preliminary results.

D. Duty Drawback

Under Section II (c) of the suspension

agreement, exporters and producers are

not to apply for, or receive, rebates on

shipments of subject merchandise in

excess of the import duties paid on

items that are physically incorporated

into exported products.

Under this program, Thai Customs

will refund import duties paid on

imported goods used in the production

of an exported product. In order to

qualify for duty drawback, the goods

must be exported through an authorized

port, the exports must be shipped

within one year of the date of

importation of the goods on which

drawback is claimed, and the producer/

exporter must request drawback within

six months of the date of exportation of

the goods.

In the preliminary results, we found

that Saha Union, Union Spinning,

Union Thread, Venus Thread, and Thai

Melon used duty drawback on exported

goods of subject merchandise to the

United States. Based on verification, we

determined that the amount of

drawback received was not in excess of

the items physically incorporated into

the exported products. Hence, the

signatories were not found to be in

violation of the agreement. Our analysis

of the comments submitted by the

interested parties, summarized below,

has not led us to change our findings in

the preliminary results.

II. Programs Found Not To Be Used

In the preliminary results we found

that the producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under the following

programs:

A. Electricity Discounts

B. Repurchase of Industrial Bills

C. Investment Promotion Act: Section

28, 31, 35, and 36

D. Export Processing Zones

E. Double Deduction for Foreign

Marketing Expenses

Our analysis of the comments

submitted by the interested parties,

summarized below, has not led us to

change our findings in the preliminary

results.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1

ECS argues that the Department

verified the continued existence of

numerous subsidy programs and the

continued receipt by several Thai yarn

producers and exporters of benefits from

several of the subsidy programs. They

further claim that these subsidy benefits

found by the Department are distinct

from and are above and beyond the large

subsidy benefits that were given to the

Thai yarn industry under the

Investment Promotion Act. ECS

maintains that the large subsidy benefits

received by the Thai yarn industry

under the Investment Promotion Act

were instrumental in the massive

expansion of the capacity of the Thai

yarn industry several years ago.

Department’s Position

The Department disagrees with the

arguments raised by ECS. As described

in the preliminary results (60 FR 39363),

the programs found to be used did not

confer a subsidy which violated the

terms of the agreement. Due to the

unusual circumstances surrounding this

case and the reinstatement of the

suspension agreement, the Department

does not consider the calculation of

EPCs in this POR to constitute a

violation of the agreement within the

meaning of 19 CFR 355.19 (d)(1994).

However, we note that Section II (a) of

the suspension agreement prohibits

participation by any signatory in the

EPC program at noncommercial rates

and terms for subject merchandise.

Thus, in future reviews, the signatories

shall follow Section II (a) of the

suspension agreement or they will be

found in violation of the agreement.

In regard to the tax certificates

received by signatories during the POR,

under Section II (c) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

can apply or receive tax certificates on

shipments of subject merchandise

exported directly or indirectly to the

United States for import duties paid on

items that are physically incorporated

into exported products. However, if the

producers and exporters apply for tax

certificates in excess of the items

physically incorporated, the suspension

agreement requires that the producers

and exporters repay to the RTG, in an

annual adjustment, the amount by

which the tax certificates exceed the

import duties on physically

incorporated inputs.

The Department will require that the

signatories repay to the RTG, in an

annual adjustment, any amount by

which the tax certificate exceeds the

amount of import duties on physically

incorporated inputs. The annual

adjustment shall be calculated in

accordance with Section IIc (i) and (ii)

of the suspension agreement.

With respect to the use of duty

drawback, the Department verified that

the amount received was not in excess

of the import duties paid on physically

incorporated inputs. Thus, the

signatories were not in violation. (See

verification report dated June 1, 1995).

Finally, the participation in the

international trade promotion fund by

four signatories does not confer a benefit

because the Department verified that the

signatories paid their own expenses.

Furthermore, the Department has never

determined this program to be

countervailable.

Comment 2

ECS wants assurance that any benefits

found by the Department during the

period of review are repaid to the RTG

in order to reverse any benefits received

by the Thai yarn producers during the

POR.

Department’s Position

As stated above, the Department will

require that the signatories repay the

amount in which the tax certificates

exceed import duties on physically

incorporated inputs. If the signatories

fail to comply with the Department, we

will determine that the signatories have

violated the agreement.

Comment 3

ECS urges the Department to maintain

close scrutiny over the administration of

the agreement so that the U.S. industry

can be assured that the subsidies found

by the Department will be repaid to the

RTG and that such benefits will not

continue in the future.

Department’s Position

The Department will continue to

closely monitor the administration of
2800 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

the agreement in order to ensure that the

excess amounts of the tax certificates are

repaid and that the signatories do not

receive any benefits in the future that

would constitute a violation of the

agreement.

Final Results of Review

For the period May 18, 1992 through

December 31, 1993, we determine that

the signatories were not in violation of

the suspension agreement.

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 C.F.R. 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)(1994))

and 19 C.F.R. 355.22(1994).

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1454 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–401]

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Thailand; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review on Noncontinuous

Noncellulosic Yarns (NCNC Yarns)

covered under the Suspended

Investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand.

SUMMARY: On July 18, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review on NCNC Yarns

covered under the agreement

suspending the countervailing duty

investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand for the period

January 1, 1993 through December 31,

1993 (suspension agreement). We have

completed this review and have

determined that the signatories were not

in violation of the suspension

agreement. However, we do note that

the Department will require that one

signatory repay the Royal Thai

Government (RTG), in an annual

adjustment, the amount by which the

tax certificate received exceeded the

import duties on physically

incorporated inputs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Yarbrough or Jim Doyle, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone (202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 26, 1990, the Department

published in the Federal Register (55

FR 6669) a notice stating its intent to

terminate the suspension agreement on

certain textile mill products from

Thailand (50 FR 9837, March 12, 1985).

On March 26, 1990, the American Yarn

Spinners Association (AYSA), a trade

association, objected to the

Department’s intent to terminate the

suspension agreement. As a result, on

November 23, 1990, the Department

terminated the suspension agreement

with regard to all non-yarn products

covered by the suspension agreement

(55 FR 48885).

Subsequent to publication of the

November 23, 1990 notice, counsel for

the RTG filed a lawsuit in the United

States Court of International Trade (CIT)

challenging the Department’s

determination that AYSA had standing

to oppose the termination of the

suspension agreement. On May 17,

1991, the CIT remanded the

determination to the Department for

reconsideration of AYSA’s standing to

oppose the termination. On July 3, 1991,

the Department issued remand results

finding that AYSA had standing to

oppose the termination vis-a-vis only

one like product covered by the

suspension agreement, i.e., NCNC yarns.

The CIT affirmed the remand

determination in its entirety on August

5, 1991. The Royal Thai Government, et

al., v. United States, Slip Op. 91–68

(August 5, 1991).

On March 16, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 12240)

of the suspension agreement for the

period January 1, 1993 to December 31,

1993. The Department received requests

for an administrative review of NCNC

yarns on March 31, 1994, from AYSA

and certain individual producers. On

April 15, 1994, the Department initiated

a countervailing duty administrative

review on NCNC yarns for the period

January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993

(59 FR 18099, April 15, 1994). The

Department verified the responses of the

RTG and the Thai Textile Manufacturers

Association (TTMA) from January 16

through January 25, 1995 pursuant to

the administrative review.

On July 18, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 36779) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of NCNC yarns

for the period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993. The Department

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results. On August 14,

1995, a case brief was submitted by

Economic Consulting Services (ECS), a

representative for the AYSA and

individual member companies of the

AYSA.

The Department has now completed

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

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

The review covers nine programs and

seven producers/exporters: Saha Union,

Venus Thread, Union Thread, Union

Spinning, Union Knitting, Union

Industries, and Thai Melon.

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 NCNC Yarns from

Thailand. During the period of review

(POR), such merchandise was

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

5508.10.0000, 5509.21.0000,

5509.22.0010, 5509.22.0090,

5509.32.0000, 5509.51.3000,

5509.51.6000, 5509.69.4000,

5511.10.0030, 5511.10.0060, and

5511.20.0000.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon our analysis of our

questionnaire and verification we

determine the following:

I. Programs Found To Be Used

A. Tax Certificates

Under Section II (c) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

can apply for or receive tax certificates

on shipments of subject merchandise

exported directly or indirectly to the

United States for import duties paid on