31914 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

1Petitioner is Korff Holdings, LLC d/b/a Quaker 

City Castings. 

2A public version of this and all public 

memoranda is on file in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), room 1117 in the main building of the 

Commerce Department. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15848 Filed 7–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ15 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) Ad 

Hoc Salmon Plan Amendment 

Committee (SPAC) will hold a meeting 

to initiate planning and develop draft 

alternatives for an amendment to the 

Salmon Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) to address the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (MSA) requirements for annual 

catch limits (ACL) and accountability 

measures (AM). This meeting of the 

SPAC is open to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Tuesday, August 4, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. and Wednesday August 5, 

2009, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 

Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 

telephone: (831) 420–3900. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Chuck Tracy, Salmon Management Staff 

Officer, Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, telephone: (503) 820–2280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

reauthorized MSA established new 

requirements to end and prevent 

overfishing through the use of ACL and 

AM. Federal FMPs must establish 

mechanisms for ACL and AM by 2010 

for stocks subject to overfishing and by 

2011 for all others, with the exceptions 

of stocks managed under an 

international agreement or stocks with a 

life cycle of approximately one year. 

On January 16, 2009, NMFS 

published amended guidelines for 

National Standard 1 (NS1) of the MSA 

to provide guidance on how to comply 

with new ACL and AM requirements. 

The NS1 Guidelines include 

recommendations for establishing 

several related reference points to 

ensure scientific and management 

uncertainty are accounted for when 

management measures are established. 

The purpose of this meeting is to 

develop recommendations for the scope 

of issues to be addressed in the FMP 

amendment process and to develop a 

work plan and begin drafting 

alternatives to address those issues. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may 

come before the SPAC for discussion, 

those issues may not be the subject of 

formal action during these meetings. 

Action will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under Section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, provided the public 

has been notified of the intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter 

at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior 

to the meeting date. 

Dated: July 1, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15923 Filed 7–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–357–819] 

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From 

Argentina: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to a 

producer and exporter of Ni-resist 

piston inserts from Argentina. For 

information on the estimated subsidy 

rate, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

4014, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4793. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On January 26, 2009, the Department 

received the petition for the imposition 

of countervailing duties filed in proper 

form by the petitioner.1 This 

investigation was initiated on February 

17, 2009. See Ni-Resist Piston Inserts 

From Argentina and the Republic of 

Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations, 74 FR 8054 (February 23, 

2009) (Initiation Notice), and 

accompanying Argentina Initiation 

Checklist.2 On March 20, 2009, the 

Department postponed the deadline for 

the preliminary determination by 65 

days to no later than June 29, 2009. See 

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From Argentina 

and the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 74 FR 11910 (March 

20, 2009). 

Normally for an investigation, the 

Department selects a respondent(s) 

based on U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports 

during the period of investigation (POI). 

In this case, the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

category that includes subject 

merchandise is broad and includes 

products other than products subject to 

this investigation. We thus determined 

that such CBP data would not be 

informative to our respondent selection. 

In the petition, petitioner identified 

Clorindo Appo SRL (Clorindo) as the 

sole Argentine producer/exporter of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POI. We did not 

receive comments from interested 

parties on respondent selection. 

Therefore, we selected Clorindo as the 

mandatory respondent in this 

investigation. See Memorandum from 

the Team through Melissa Skinner, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations Office 3, 

to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

titled ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ (March 4, 

2009). 

On March 4, 2009, we issued the 

initial countervailing duty (CVD) 

questionnaire to the Government of 

Argentina (GOA) and Clorindo. On 

March 4 and 27, 2009, petitioner 

submitted new subsidy allegations. On 

March 20 and April 6, 2009, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 31915 

3On May 1, 2009, counsel for Clorindo was 

instructed to re-file the company’s questionnaire 

response dated April 24, 2009, because the 

document contained information not germane to 

this investigation. See Letter from Melissa G. 

Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations Office 3, to 

Peter Koenig of Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey, 

dated May 1, 2009. Mr. Koenig re-filed Clorindo’s 

questionnaire response on May 6, 2009. 

4The GOA established a rebate system in 1971, 

which was known as the Reembolso. Under the 

Reembolso, exporters could recover import duties 

and indirect taxes on items physically incorporated 

into the final product. In May 1991, the GOA issued 

Decree 1011/91, which renamed the Reembolso as 

the Reintegro, and modified the legal structure of 

the program. Under Decree 1011/91, the Reintegro 

rebates indirect taxes only. The Department has 

previously examined the Reintegro and Reembolso. 

See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 50613 

(October 4, 2001), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Argentine Internal Tax 

Reimbursement/Rebate Program (Reintegro);’’ and 

Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Argentina, 67 FR 62106 (October 3, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Reintegro.’’ 

5See Decree No. 509/2007 at Exhibit 1 of GOA 

supplemental questionnaire response (SQR) (May 

28, 2009). 

6See GOA initial questionnaire response (IQR) at 

1 (April 24, 2009). 

Department initiated investigations of 

newly alleged subsidy programs 

pursuant to section 775 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations Office 3, 

from Kristen Johnson, trade analyst, AD/ 

CVD Operations Office 3, titled ‘‘New 

Subsidy Allegations’’ (March 20, 2009), 

and Memorandum to Melissa G. 

Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations 

Office 3, from Kristen Johnson, trade 

analyst, AD/CVD Operations Office 3, 

titled ‘‘Additional New Subsidy 

Allegations’’ (April 6, 2009). 

Questionnaires regarding these newly 

alleged subsidies were issued to the 

GOA and Clorindo on March 20 and 

April 6, 2009, respectively. The GOA 

and Clorindo submitted questionnaire 

responses to the March 4, 2009, initial 

questionnaire and March 20, 2009, new 

subsidy allegations questionnaire on 

April 24 and May 6, 2009,3 respectively. 

On May 6 and May 7, 2009, the GOA 

and Clorindo, respectively, submitted 

their questionnaire responses to the 

April 6, 2009, additional new subsidies 

questionnaire. We issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOA 

and Clorindo on May 4, 2009, and 

received the GOA’s supplemental 

questionnaire response on May 28, 

2009, and Clorindo’s response on June 

1, 2009. On May 29, 2009, we issued a 

second supplemental questionnaire to 

the GOA and received the questionnaire 

response on June 17, 2009. On June 3, 

2009, we issued a second supplemental 

questionnaire to Clorindo and received 

the questionnaire response on June 17, 

2009. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes all Ni-resist piston inserts 

regardless of size, thickness, weight, or 

outside diameter. Ni-resist piston inserts 

may also be called other names 

including, but not limited to, ‘‘Ring 

Carriers,’’ or ‘‘Alfin Inserts.’’ Ni-resist 

piston inserts are alloyed cast iron rings, 

with or without a sheet metal cooling 

channel pressed and welded into the 

interior of the insert. Ni-resist piston 

inserts are composed of the material 

known as Ni-resist, of the chemical 

composition: 13.5%–17.5% Ni (nickel), 

5.5%–8.0% Cu (copper), 0.8%–2.5% Cr 

(chromium), 0.5%–1.5% Mn 

(manganese), 1.0%–3.0% Si (silicon), 

2.4%–3.0% C (carbon). The cast iron 

composition is produced primarily to 

the material specifications of the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), ASTM A–436 grade 

1. 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include piston rings nor any other 

product manufactured using the Niresist material. The subject imports are 

properly classified under subheading 

8409.99.91.90 of the HTSUS, but have 

been imported under HTSUS 7326.90. 

The HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes. 

The written description is dispositive of 

the scope of this investigation. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the Preamble to 

the Department’s regulations (see 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997) (Preamble)), in the Initiation 

Notice, we set aside a period of time for 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage, and encouraged all parties to 

submit comments within 20 calendar 

days of publication of the Initiation 

Notice. The Department did not receive 

scope comments from any interested 

party. 

Injury Test 

Because Argentina is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the 

International Trade Commission (the 

ITC) is required to determine whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

Argentina materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. On 

March 25, 2009, the ITC published its 

preliminary determination finding that 

there is a reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

from Argentina of the subject 

merchandise. See Ni-Resist Piston 

Inserts from Argentina and Korea; 

Determinations, Investigation Nos. 701– 

TA–460–461 (Preliminary), 74 FR 12898 

(March 25, 2009). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation for which 

we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 

2008, through December 31, 2008, 

which corresponds to Argentina’s most 

recently completed fiscal year. See 19 

CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Company History 

Clorindo, a privately-owned 

company, started operations as a car and 

truck motors repair shop in the mid 

1950’s. In 1974, the company was 

incorporated and later in the 1980’s, the 

company added to its product line the 

Ni-resist piston insert. Clorindo is the 

only producer and exporter of Ni-resist 

piston inserts in Argentina. Currently, 

the only product manufactured by 

Clorindo is the Ni-resist piston insert. 

Analysis of Programs 

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Countervailable 

A. Tax Relief Under the Reintegro 

Pursuant to Decree No. 1011/91, the 

GOA established the Reintegro, which 

entitles Argentine exporters of new and 

unused goods manufactured in 

Argentina to a rebate of domestic 

indirect taxes that are levied during the 

production and distribution process of 

the finished export products.4 The 

Reintegro provides a cumulative tax 

rebate paid upon export, calculated as a 

percentage of the FOB value of the 

export less the CIF value of imported 

raw materials. The Reintegro rate is 

applied only to the domestic value of 

the exported product and no rebates are 

given on imported inputs. The taxes 

refunded are the domestic indirect taxes 

(e.g., statistical tax, national fund for 

electricity tax, and stamp tax) imposed 

on local production. 

All exporters are eligible to receive a 

rebate of indirect taxes under the 

Reintegro. There is no application 

process for the rebate because the 

provision of the rebate is automatic once 

the export is conducted and the 

shipping documents completed and 

examined by the customs authorities. 

During the POI, Clorindo was entitled to 

a rebate of 5.25 percent on each export 

of subject merchandise to the United 

States.5 Exports of subject merchandise 

are classified under the Argentine tariff 

schedule subheading 7326.90.00.900J 

(Other Iron and Steel Manufactures).6

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

31916 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

7 Id. at 5–6. 

8 Id. at 6. 

9 Id. 

10 See GOA SQR at 6 (May 28, 2009). 

11 Id. at 5. 

12 See GOA IQR at 7–8 (April 24, 2009). 

13 See GOA SQR at 4 (May 28, 2009). 

14 Id. at 5. 

15See Clorindo SQR at 6 (June 1, 2009). 

16 Id. at Exhibit 8. 

17 Id. at 6. 

18 See GOA SQR at 3 (May 28, 2009) and at 1 

(June 17, 2009). 

We preliminarily determine that the 

Reintegro confers a financial 

contribution in the form of a direct 

transfer of funds from the GOA to 

Clorindo under section 771(5)(D)(i) of 

the Act and that the Reintegro is specific 

under section 771(5A)(A) of the Act 

because it is contingent upon export 

performance. 

To determine whether a benefit exists 

for a tax rebate program, the Department 

normally examines whether the amount 

remitted or rebated exceeds the amount 

of prior-stage cumulative indirect taxes 

paid on inputs consumed in the 

production of the exported subject 

merchandise, making normal 

allowances for waste. See 19 CFR 

351.518(a)(2). If the amount rebated 

exceeds the amount of the prior-stage 

cumulative indirect taxes paid on inputs 

consumed in the production, the excess 

amount is a countervailable benefit. Id. 

However, there is an exception to this 

rule under 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4)(i) 

and(ii), which states that the 

Department will consider the entire 

amount of the tax rebate or remission to 

confer a benefit unless: (1) The 

government in question has in place and 

applies a system or procedure to 

confirm which inputs are consumed in 

the production of the exported product 

and in what amounts, and to confirm 

which indirect taxes are imposed on 

these inputs, and the system or 

procedure is reasonable, effective for the 

purposes intended, and is based on 

generally accepted commercial practices 

in the country of export; or (2) If the 

government in question does not have a 

system or procedure in place, if the 

system or procedure is not reasonable, 

or if the system or procedure is 

instituted and considered reasonable, 

but is found not to be applied or not be 

applied effectively, the government in 

question has carried out an examination 

of actual inputs involved to confirm 

which inputs are consumed in the 

production of the exported product, in 

what amounts, and which indirect taxes 

are imposed on the inputs. 

In our questionnaires, we asked the 

GOA to describe the system or 

procedure that it has in place to 

establish the appropriate level of 

Reintegro for the subject merchandise. 

The GOA stated that while it has no 

written procedures or guidelines for the 

operation of this rebate system, it does 

follow a methodology for establishing 

the Reintegro rates.7 The GOA reported 

that it first identifies, based on industry 

chamber studies, all the inputs (national 

or import origin) and other items 

required to manufacture the product. 

The GOA stated that it then determines 

on a percentage-wide basis the amount 

required of each input and establishes 

the average amount of each input 

required to manufacture the exported 

product. In addition, for each 

component and other items a cost 

structure provided by the suppliers is 

built-in to calculate the tax content for 

them.8

The GOA added that the industry 

chamber studies are supplemented by 

an Input-Output Matrix (IOM) 

administered by the Ministry of 

Economy. The IOM is a set of matrices 

(i.e., supply, utilization, margins, 

transport, import, etc.) that reflect the 

interactions among different sectors of 

the Argentine economy. In addition, the 

GOA explained that there are fiscal 

matrices that show the taxes paid by 

each sector of the economy. Based on 

this methodology and the government’s 

budgetary constraints, the GOA stated 

that the Ministries of Economy and 

Production set the Reintegro rebate 

rates.9

We asked the GOA to provide that 

portion of the IOM and fiscal matrices 

that are relevant to the subject 

merchandise or subheading 

7326.90.00.09J. The GOA, however, did 

not submit the requested information, 

stating that such information is 

exclusively for internal use.10 We also 

asked the GOA to explain how it 

concluded that the appropriate rate of 

rebate for subheading 7326.90.00.09J is 

5.25 percent. The GOA stated that the 

only criterion which should be followed 

is that the rebate rate must not be higher 

than the percentage of the indirect tax 

incidence calculated by the industry 

chamber.11

Concerning the rebate rate for the 

subject merchandise, the GOA stated 

that it used the indirect tax incidence 

study prepared in 2002, by the 

Asociacion de Industriales Metalurgicos 

de la Republica Argentina (ADIMRA) for 

tariff subheading 7326.90.00.900J (Other 

Iron and Steel Manufactures).12 In 

preparing its study, the GOA stated that 

ADIMRA researched a number of 

industries whose products are classified 

under this tariff subheading and 

gathered information from sector and 

regional enterprise chambers.13 The 

study lists the inputs and other items 

required to produce products exported 

under the tariff subheading, which, in 

addition to Ni-resist piston inserts, 

include such products as metallic boxes, 

stirrups, towel-heaters, ashtrays, and 

hooks.14 The ADIMRA study calculated 

an indirect tax incidence of 5.35 

percent. 

In our questionnaires, we requested 

both the GOA and Clorindo to explain 

how the company’s cost of production 

and indirect tax incidence data were 

incorporated into the ADIMRA study. 

Clorindo stated that it did not submit its 

table of indirect tax burden to any 

government agency or industry 

organization.15 Clorindo reported that 

its table of indirect tax burden16 was 

prepared in April 2009,17 for the 

purpose of this investigation. The GOA 

stated that the ADIMRA study and 

Clorindo’s table of indirect tax burden 

coincide with each other because the 

GOA provided a copy of an ADIMRA 

study to Clorindo which then calculated 

the tax incidence for its merchandise 

according to its own cost and 

productive structure.18

Because Clorindo, the only Argentine 

producer/exporter of Ni-resist piston 

inserts, did not provide information 

used in the ADIMRA 2002 study for 

tariff subheading 7326.90.00.900J, upon 

which the GOA relied to set the 

Reintegro rate, the ADIMRA study is 

neither representative of the cost 

structure for the subject merchandise 

nor reflective of the indirect taxes 

incurred in the production of the subject 

merchandise. The ADIMRA study is 

void of the actual inputs involved in the 

production of the subject merchandise 

to confirm which inputs are consumed 

in the production of Ni-resist piston 

inserts, in what amounts, and which 

indirect taxes are imposed on those 

inputs. 

Therefore, the GOA’s methodology for 

establishing the Reintegro rate by first 

identifying, based on industry chamber 

studies, all the inputs and other items 

required to manufacture the exported 

product, next calculating percentages 

and average amounts of each of those 

inputs, and then computing an 

approximate effective indirect tax 

incidence, failed to incorporate data for 

Ni-resist piston inserts. The 

identification of inputs and indirect tax 

incidence reported in the ADIMRA 

study are not reflective of and were not 

tested against Clorindo’s actual 

information or experience. As such, we 

preliminarily determine that the 5.25 

percent Reintegro rate set by the GOA 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 31917 

19 See GOA SQR at 2 (June 17, 2009). 

20 See GOA SQR at 12 (May 28, 2009). 

21See GOA at ‘‘Stamp Tax Exemption in the 

Province of Santa Fe’’ (June 17, 2009). 

22See Clorindo IQR at 15 (May 6, 2009). 

23See GOA SQR at ‘‘Provincial Turnover Tax’’ 

(June 17, 2009). The GOA reported that the turnover 

tax exemption was first established by Provincial 

Decree 3848 of 1993, within the framework of the 

‘‘Federal Pact for Employment, Production, and 

Economic Growth’’ (the Federal Pact). The Federal 

Pact was launched by the federal government aimed 

at fostering employment, production, and growth 

throughout the country. One of the main objectives 

of the Federal Pact was to modify the turnover tax 

exemption. The exemption was later modified and 

its current version is Article 160 (paragraph ‘‘n’’) of 

the Santa Fe Province Tax Code (Law 3456). 

for the reimbursement of domestic 

indirect taxes for exported products 

under tariff subheading 7326.90.00.900J 

has no relationship to the actual 

production process and indirect taxes 

paid by Clorindo. We further 

preliminarily determine that the 

absence of cost of production and 

indirect tax incidence data for Ni-resist 

piston inserts in the government’s 

Reintegro methodology demonstrates 

that the GOA lacks a system and 

procedure for the establishment of the 

appropriate level of Reintegro rebate 

applicable to exports of the subject 

merchandise. 

Other than the ADIMRA study, the 

GOA did not provide any information to 

demonstrate that it carried out a 

reasonable examination of actual inputs 

involved to confirm which inputs are 

consumed in the production of Ni-resist 

piston inserts, in what amounts, and 

which indirect taxes are imposed on 

those inputs. The GOA reported that it 

does not conduct audits of companies 

which receive Reintegro rebates to 

confirm that the rebate rate assigned for 

a particular tariff subheading is 

appropriate.19

We, therefore, preliminarily 

determine that the GOA has not met the 

requirements for non-countervailability 

as set forth in 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4)(i) 

and (ii). As such, we preliminarily 

determine that the entire amount of the 

Reintegro rebate received by Clorindo 

for its exports of Ni-resist piston inserts 

to be countervailable. Because we 

preliminarily find the entire amount of 

the Reintegro for Ni-resist piston inserts 

to be countervailable, we need not 

address the Reintegro’s 

countervailability under 19 CFR 

351.518(a)(2). 

Because the Reintegro is calculated as 

a percentage of the FOB value of the 

exports, the percentage rebated serves as 

the subsidy rate. Thus, we preliminarily 

determine that Reintegro provided a 

countervailable subsidy of 5.25 percent 

ad valorem to Clorindo during the POI. 

B. Provincial Stamp Tax Exemption 

The GOA and Clorindo reported that 

the company received stamp tax 

exemptions during the POI. The GOA 

stated that a stamp tax is applied to 

documented legal transactions, such as 

contracts, credit instruments, and 

property rights, and is administered by 

the provincial tax authority, which can 

also establish a stamp tax exemption.20

On the record, however, there is 

conflicting information about the type of 

stamp tax exemption Clorindo received 

and under which provincial law that 

exemption was provided. 

In its June 17, 2009, questionnaire 

response at ‘‘Stamp Tax Exemptions in 

the Province of Santa Fe,’’ the GOA 

reported that there are three stamp tax 

exemptions: (1) Article 183.29 of the 

Santa Fe Fiscal Code, which provides a 

full stamp tax exemption on (a) credits 

granted to finance import and export 

transactions and (b) currency exchange 

transactions subject to the specific tax 

on the purchase and sale of foreign 

currency; (2) Article 183.38 of the Santa 

Fe Fiscal Code, which provides a full 

tax stamp exemption on all active 

financial and related transactions, as 

well as insurance transactions, with 

financial and insurance entities, when 

related to mining, industrial, 

construction, and farming sectors; and 

(3) Law 11,257 of June 2005, which 

states that contracts not entitled to the 

benefits under Article 183.29 and 

Article 183.38 are subject to a 50 

percent reduction of the stamp tax on 

the transaction value. 

The GOA stated that there is no 

application process or special procedure 

to benefit from the stamp tax 

exemptions. The GOA explained that a 

transaction which meets the criteria 

established in Article 183.29 or 183.38 

of the Fiscal Code or in Law 11,257 is 

automatically exempt (fully or partially, 

respectively) from the tax.21 The GOA, 

however, did not provide a complete 

copy and translation of Article 183.29, 

Article 183.38, or Law 11, 257, which 

would outline the eligibility criteria of 

the laws. 

In its May 6, 2009, questionnaire 

response, Clorindo reported that any 

industrial manufacturer located in the 

province of Santa Fe is fully exempt 

from the stamp tax (i.e., 0.10 percent on 

the transaction value that is split 

between the transaction parties) and 

cited to Article 183.29 of the Santa Fe 

Fiscal Code.22 Subsequently, in its June 

1, 2009, questionnaire response, 

Clorindo reported that the stamp tax 

exemptions which it received for 

‘‘import/export financing and approved 

credit agreements’’ were provided for 

under provincial Law 11,123, which 

exempts from the stamp tax all active 

financial and related transactions with 

financial and insurance entities when 

related to mining, industrial, 

construction, and farming sectors. The 

GOA in its June 17, 2009, questionnaire 

response stated that Law 11,123 

modified the provincial tax and 

introduced Article 183.38 of the Santa 

Fe Fiscal Code. Clorindo later reported, 

in its June 17, 2009, questionnaire 

response (at 2), that a certain portion of 

the total amount of the import/export 

financing and approved credit 

agreements was related to export 

transactions and/or export related 

contracts. 

Based on the record evidence, we 

preliminarily find that Clorindo 

received a certain amount of stamp tax 

exemptions under Article 183.29. We 

preliminarily determine that the stamp 

tax exemptions provided under Article 

183.29 are specific under section 

771(5A)(A) of the Act because the 

exemptions are contingent upon export 

performance. We also preliminarily 

determine that a financial contribution 

is provided under section 771(5)(D)(ii) 

of the Act in the form of revenue 

foregone. A benefit is conferred in the 

form of a tax exemption. 

To calculate the benefit, we divided 

that portion of Clorindo’s stamp tax 

exemption related to export transactions 

and/or export related contracts by the 

company’s total export sales value for 

2008. On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine the net countervailable 

subsidy under this program to be 0.17 

percent ad valorem. 

At verification, we will seek further 

clarification of the laws under which 

the stamp tax exemptions are provided 

in Santa Fe, including eligibility 

criteria, and under which of the laws 

Clorindo received its stamp tax 

exemptions during the POI. 

II. Program Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Not Countervailable 

A. Provincial Turnover Tax Exemption 

Article 160 (paragraph ‘‘n’’) of the 

Santa Fe Fiscal Code (Law 3456) 

established a turnover tax exemption for 

all the industrial activities and primary 

production of manufacturing companies 

located within the territory of Santa Fe 

Province.23 The GOA described the 

turnover tax as a general tax, which is 

an ‘‘accumulative tax’’ because taxes are 

levied on goods and services (if not 

exempted) at each stage of the 

production process, whether subject to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

31918 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2009 / Notices 

24See GOA SQR at 13 (May 28, 2009). 

25See Clorindo SQR at 15–17 (June 1, 2009). 

26 Id. at 17 and Clorindo SQR at 4 and Exhibit E 

(June 17, 2009). 

27See GOA SQR at ‘‘Provincial Turnover Tax’’ 

(June 17, 2009) and Clorindo SQR at Exhibit C2 

(June 17, 2009) and SQR at 15 (June 1, 2009). 

transformation or not. The turnover tax 

is levied on the total sales value.24

The turnover tax exemption is 

administered and regulated by the Tax 

Provincial Administration of the 

Government of Santa Fe. There is no 

application process or special procedure 

to benefit from the tax exemption. The 

GOA reported that any transaction that 

meets the criteria outlined in Article 

160 (paragraph ‘‘n’’) of the Tax Code is 

automatically exempt from the tax. 

Eligibility for the tax exemption is not 

contingent upon export performance or 

use of domestic over imported goods 

and is not limited to certain enterprises 

or industries. 

As a manufacturing company located 

in the province of Santa Fe, Clorindo 

was eligible for and received turnover 

tax exemptions on its domestic sales 

during the POI.25 Specifically, Clorindo 

was exempt from paying the general tax 

rate of 1.50 percent for industrial 

activity in Santa Fe.26

We preliminarily determine that the 

turnover tax exemption provided under 

Article 160 of the Fiscal Code is not 

specific and, hence, does not provide a 

countervailable benefit. Information on 

the law provided by the GOA and 

Clorindo 27 demonstrates that the 

turnover tax exemption is available to 

all companies involved in industrial 

activities and manufacturing production 

within Santa Fe Province and, therefore, 

is not specific under section 771(5A)(D) 

of the Act. 

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Used 

We preliminarily determine that 

Clorindo did not apply for or receive 

benefits during the POI under the 

programs listed below: 

A. Subsidiary Fund for Regional Tariff 

Compensation to Final Users 

B. Banco de Inversion y Comercio 

Exterior S.A. (BICE) Pre-Export 

Financing 

C. BICE Post-Export Financing 

D. Banco de la Nacion Argentina 

(BNA) Pre-Export Financing to Small 

and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) 

E. BNA Pre-Export Financing under 

‘‘Pre-Export Argentinas’’ 

F. BNA Export Financing to SMEs 

G. BNA Export Financing (for all 

exporters) 

H. BNA Investment Financing for 

SMEs under the Credit Lines to Assist 

SMEs 

I. BNA Working Capital Credit under 

‘‘Finance Companies to Exporters’’ 

J. BNA Working Capital Credit to 

SMEs under Credit Lines to Assist SMEs 

K. BNA Financing of Imports to SMEs 

under Credit Lines to Assist SMEs 

L. BNA Import Financing under 

‘‘Finance Companies to Exporters’’ 

M. Repro (Production Recovery Plan) 

N. Fund for Argentine Technology 

(FONTAR) Non-Repayable 

Contributions 

O. FONTAR Tax Credit Program 

P. FONTAR Regional Credits 

Q. FONTAR Credits to Enterprises for 

Technological Development 

R. Fund for Scientific and 

Technological Research (FONCyT) 

Research-Oriented Science and 

Technology (PICT) 

S. FONCyT Research and 

Development Projects (PID) 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of 

the Act, we intend to verify the 

information submitted by Clorindo and 

the GOA prior to making our final 

determination. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for 

Clorindo, the only company under 

investigation. We preliminarily 

determine the total estimated net 

countervailable subsidy rate is 5.42 

percent ad valorem. The All Others rate 

is 5.42 percent ad valorem, which is the 

rate calculated for Clorindo. 

In accordance with sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 

directing CBP to suspend liquidation of 

all entries of the subject merchandise 

from Argentina that are entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register, and to require a cash deposit 

or bond for such entries of the 

merchandise in the amounts indicated 

above. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information relating to this 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) 

of the Act, if our final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), the Department will disclose 

to the parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of its announcement. Case briefs 

for this investigation must be submitted 

no later than one week after the 

issuance of the last verification report. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c) (for a further 

discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal 

briefs, which must be limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). A list of authorities relied 

upon, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c), we will hold a public 

hearing, if requested, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

this preliminary determination. 

Individuals who wish to request a 

hearing must submit a written request 

within 30 days of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register to the 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. Parties will be notified of the 

schedule for the hearing and parties 

should confirm the time, date, and place 

of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. Requests for a public 

hearing should contain: (1) Party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 703(f) 

and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15830 Filed 7–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES