90-716

NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-357-803]

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Leather From
Argentina

Monday, July 16, 1990

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that benefits which constitute bounties or grants
within the meaning of the countervailing duty law are being provided to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Argentina of leather as described in the
"Scope of Investigation" section of this notice. The estimated net bounty or grant is 1.58
percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Argentina of
leather, except for Antonio Esposito S.A., Coplinco S.A., Gibaut Hermanos, S.A., and
Manuel Neira, S.A.I.C.F. These companies are excluded from this determination because
their estimated net bounty or grant rates are de minimis (less than 0.50 percent ad
valorem.)

To take into account program-wide changes that occurred before our preliminary
determination, we are adjusting the rate to reflect the phase-out of pre-export financing
under Circular RF-l53 and the indefinite suspension of the tax deduction under Decree
173/85. The adjusted rate for all manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Argentina
of leather, except for the above-named excluded companies, is 0.19 percent, which is de
minimis.

Due to the fact that the bounty or grant rate for all non-excluded manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Argentina of leather, as adjusted for the above-described
program-wide changes, is de minimis, we are not directing the U.S. Customs Service to
suspend liquidation on entries of leather from Argentina at this time.

If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make a final determination on or before
September 24, 1990.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1990.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Halpern or Roy Malmrose, Office of
Countervailing Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 377-0192 or 377-5414.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

Based on our investigation, we preliminarily determine that there is reason to believe or
suspect that benefits which constitute bounties or grants within the meaning of section
303 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are being provided to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Argentina of leather. We preliminarily determine that the
following programs confer bounties or grants:
- Circular RF-153: Pre-export Financing.
- Discounts of Foreign Currency Accounts Receivable under Circular RF-21.
- Tax Deduction under Decree 173.

Case History

Since publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal Register (55 FR 8159, March 7,
1990), the following events have occurred. On March 22, 1990, we received a letter from
petitioners requesting that the scope of this investigation be amended to exclude those
products entering duty-free under the Generalized System of Preferences. Pursuant to 19
CFR 355.12(e), we published in the Federal Register an Amendment to the Scope of
Investigation (55 FR 13303, April 10, 1990).
On March 23, 1990, we presented a questionnaire to the Government of Argentina
(GOA) in Washington, DC concerning petitioners' allegations. On May 7, 1990, we
received responses from the GOA and from Camara de la Industria Curtidora Argentina
(CICA), the Argentine leather industry association. We also received responses from
twelve companies: Curtiembres Fonseca S.A. (CF), Federico Meiners Ltda. S.A. (Meiners),
S.A.D.E.S.A. (SADESA), Curtiembre Los Cabritos, S.A. (CLC), Compania Industrial del
Cuero, S.A. (CIDEC), C.I.D.E.C. La Rioja, S.A. (CIDEC La Rioja), Ultrahide S.A. (Ultrahide),
Antonio Esposito S.A. (Esposito), Coplinco S.A. (Coplinco), Grunbaum, Rico y Daucourt,
S.A.I.C.F. (Grunbaum), Gibaut Hermanos, S.A. (Gibaut), and Manuel Neira, S.A.I.C.F.
(Neira). On May 22, 1990, we issued a supplemental/deficiency questionnaire to the GOA
and the respondent companies. We received responses to this questionnaire on June 5,
1990. We issued a second questionnaire concerning related company issues to the
respondent companies on June 13, 1990. We received responses to this questionnaire on
June 20, 1990. On June 26 and 29, 1990, the respondent companies submitted an
erratum correcting errors in the responses. The GOA submitted additional information on
June 27, 1990.
On April 3, 1990, the petition was amended to include Westfield Tanning Co. as a
petitioner. On May 10, 1990, Gebhardt-Vogel Tanning Co., Inc., and Pfister & Vogel
Tanning Company withdrew as petitioners. On May 14, 1990, Eagle Ottawa Leather Co.
withdrew as a petitioner. On June 7, 1990, the petition was amended to include Suncook
Tanning Corp., United Tanners Inc., Bob-Kat Leather Co., Inc., and Paul Flagg, Inc. as
petitioners. Bob-Kat Leather Co., Inc., withdrew as a petitioner on June 20, 1990.
On April 11, 1990, respondents alleged that petitioners lack standing. During the months
of April and May, 1990, we received letters from U.S. firms opposing the petition, and
sent out questionnaires to these firms as their letters came in. The standing issue is
addressed in the Standing section, below.
On April 12, 1990, the petitioners filed a request that the preliminary determination be
postponed. Pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed the preliminary
determination until July 9, 1990. See, Postponement of Preliminary Determination:
Leather from Argentina, (55 FR 17292, April 24, 1990).

Scope of Investigation

The United States has developed a system of tariff classification based on the international
harmonized system of customs nomenclature. On January 1, 1989, the U.S. tariff
schedules were fully converted to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), and all
merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after that date
is now classified solely according to the appropriate HTS item number. The Department is
providing both the appropriate Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA)
item number(s) and the appropriate HTS item number(s) with its product descriptions for
convenience and Customs purposes. The Department's written description of the
merchandise under investigation remains dispositive.
The product covered by this investigation is leather. The types of leather that are subject
to this investigation include bovine (excluding upper and lining leather not exceeding

*28926

28 square feet, buffalo leather, and upholstery leather), sheep (excluding
vegetable pretanned sheep and lambskin leather), swine, reptile (excluding vegetable
pretanned and not fancy reptile leather), patent leather, calf and kip patent laminated,
and metalized leather. Leather is an animal skin that has been subjected to certain
treatment to make it serviceable and resistant to decomposition. It is used in the
footwear, clothing, furniture and other industries. The types of leather included within
the scope of this investigation are currently classified under HTS numbers 4104.10.60,
4104.10.80, 4104.21.00, 4104.22.00, 4104.29.50, 4104.29.90, 4104.31.50,
4104.31.60, 4104.31.80, 4104.39.50, 4104.39.60, 4104.39.80, 4105.12.00,
4105.19.00, 4105.20.30, 4105.20.60, 4107.10.00, 4107.29.60, 4107.90.30,
4107.90.60, 4109.00.30, 4109.00.40, and 4109.00.70, and were formerly classifiable
under TSUSA item numbers 121.20.00, 121.40.00, 121.45.00, 121.50.00, 121.54.00,
121.61.05, 121.61.10, 121.61.20, 121.61.25, 121.61.30, 121.61.33, 121.61.36, 121.61.37,
121.61.38, 121.63.41, 121.63.43, and 121.65.00.

Standing

The Department has received a total of 62 letters from U.S. firms opposing the petition.
Questionnaires were sent to each of these firms to ascertain its share of U.S. leather
production. To date, we have received responses filed in proper form from 20 firms.
Based on these responses, the firms opposing the petition have not demonstrated that
they represent a majority of the U.S. industry
There is nothing in the statute, its legislative history, or our regulations which reguires
that petitioners establish affirmatively that they have the support of a majority of their
industries. In many cases, such a requirement would be so onerous as to preclude access
to import relief under the countervailing and antidumping duty laws. Therefore,
consistent with our past practice (see, for example, Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination: Certain Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden (52 FR 5794,
February 26, 1987); Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain
Fresh Atlantic Groundfish from Canada (51 FR 10041, March 24, 1986); and Frozen
Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value (52 FR 8324, March 17, 1987)), we have preliminarily determined that petitioners
do not lack standing.

Analysis of Programs

Due to the large number of leather tanners in Argentina, we requested, in accordance
with Department practice (see, for example, Final Negative Countervailing Duty
Determinations: Certain Textile Mill Products and Apparel from Malaysia (50 FR March
12, 1985) and Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Granite
Products from Italy (53 FR July 19, 1988)), that the GOA identify those producers and
exporters which account for at least 60 percent of the value of the leather exported to the
United States. We then asked the GOA to forward questionnaires to those producers and
exporters.
We received responses from nine producers and exporters (CF, Meiners, CIDEC,
Ultrahide, Esposito, Coplinco, Grunbaum, Gibaut, and Neira), and three related
companies (SADESA and CLC, "sister" companies to Meiners, and CIDEC La Rioja, a
subsidiary of CIDEC). According to the May 7, 1990 response, two of these related
companies, CLC and CIDEC La Rioja, did not export any products to the United States
during the review period. Based on the response to our supplemental questionnaire of
June 13, 1990, we are excluding all three related companies from our analysis because
the questionnaire responses indicate that the companies to whom they are related cannot
transfer production and/or export functions to these related companies. See, Armco Inc.
v. U.S., slip op. 90-32 (CIT 1990).
Consistent with our practice in preliminary determinations, when a response to an
allegation denies the existence of a program, receipt of benefits under a program, or
eligibility of a company or industry under a program, and the Department has no
persuasive evidence showing that the response is incorrect, we accept the response for
purposes of the preliminary determination. All such responses, however, are subject to
verification. If the response cannot be supported at verification, and the program is
otherwise countervailable, the program will be considered a bounty or grant in the final
determination.
For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are measuring
bounties or grants ("the review period") is calendar year 1989, which corresponds to the
most recently completed fiscal year of the majority of the respondent companies. The
other respondent companies each have different fiscal years which overlap this period. In
accordance with our practice in such situations, we have chosen the most recently
completed calendar year as our review period.
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we
preliminarily determine the following:

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Bounties or Grants

We preliminarily determine that bounties or grants are being provided to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Argentina of leather under the following programs:

A. Circular RF-153: Pre-Export Financing

Circular RF-153 allows exporters to receive pre-export financing in the form of
dollar-indexed loans under a program administered by the Central Bank of Argentina.
The amount of the loan can equal up to 65 percent of the f.o.b. export value if the
merchandise to be exported is produced solely from domestically-produced inputs. If the
exporter uses imported materials, the level of financing is reduced according to the
imported content of the merchandise to be exported. Loans under this program are made
to individual corporate borrowers by commercial banks which, in turn, are reimbursed
by the Central Bank. According to the responses, the loans are extended to exporters of
leather for a maximum period of 150 days.
The principal and interest payments under this program are indexed to the austral/dollar
exchange rate. The loans are given in australes but are tied to a fixed dollar amount based
on the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the loan. At the time of repayment, the
fixed dollar amount is reconverted to australes based on the exchange rate prevailing on
that date, and the borrower must repay the new austral amount. In addition, the
borrower must make quarterly interest payments in australes, in most cases applying an
eight percent annual interest rate to the fixed dollar amount reconverted to australes at
the exchange rate prevailing at the end of each quarter. Effective October 1, 1989, the
eight percent interest rate was increased to ten percent.
Communication A-1205 of June 3, 1988, set up a mechanism for Argentine commercial
banks to source export financing directly from international banks instead of through the
Central Bank. According to the responses, the rates charged exporters by the commercial
banks on this financing are freely- negotiated. During the review period, this alternative
source of export

*28927

financing was available to exporters along with the RF-153
financing sourced through the Central Bank. After January 1, 1990, Central Bank lines of
credit under Circular RF-153 were closed and export financing by Argentine banks was
conducted only with foreign bank funds. RF-153 loans received before January 1, 1990,
continued on their normal payment schedules. According to the responses, however, all
of this financing must have been paid off before June 1, 1990, because the maximum term
of each loan was 150 days.
The responses state the following companies received RF-153 loans on which interest was
paid during the review period: CF, Meiners, CIDEC, Ultrahide, Esposito, Grunbaum, and
Gibaut. Because only exporters are eligible for these loans, we preliminarily determine
that they are countervailable to the extent that they are provided at preferential rates.
As the benchmark for short-term (less than one-year) loans, it is our practice to use the
average interest rate for an alternative source of short-term financing in the country in
question. In determining this benchmark, we will normally rely upon the predominant
source of short-term financing. In the absence of a single, predominant source of such
financing, we may use a benchmark composed of the interest rates for two or more
sources of short-term financing, weighted, wherever possible, according to the value of
financing from each source. Accordingly, in past cases involving imports from
Argentina, we have used a weighted-average of regulated and unregulated austral
interest rates as our benchmark for the short-term export financing offered under RF-
153. (See, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and
Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products
from Argentina (53 FR 37619, September 27, 1988).)
For purposes of this preliminary determination, however, we have decided to use as a
benchmark the interest rate on dollar-indexed loans offered by commercial banks in
Argentina as a result of Communication A-1205. In this way, we are comparing
dollar-indexed financing to dollar-indexed financing. We have done so because, although
dollar-indexed financing may not be the predominant form of financing in Argentina, a
comparison of the austral benchmark used in past cases with the dollar-indexed
benchmark during the review period indicates that these two forms of financing involved
significantly different interest rates. Due to the erratic and extreme exchange rate
changes during the review period, there was no relationship between the financing costs
of dollar-indexed loans and austral-denominated loans. This has led us to conclude that
austral financing is not comparable to dollar-indexed financing during the review period.
Moreover, use of a dollar- indexed benchmark is consistent with our past practice, in that
it is an alternative available in Argentina. According to the responses, this alternative is
being used more and more frequently. Thus, we preliminarily determine that it is
appropriate to use a dollar-indexed benchmark when examining the degree to which
RF-153 loans provide a benefit to Argentine exporters.
Comparing the benchmark rate to the rates charged on RF-153 loans during the review
period, we find that the RF-153 loans are preferential and, therefore, confer a bounty or
grant on exports of leather.
To calculate the benefit from RF-153 loans on which interest was paid during the review
period, we followed the short-term loan methodology which has been applied
consistently in our past determinations and which is described in more detail in the
Subsidies Appendix attached to the notice of Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled
Products from Argentina: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 18006, April 26, 1984; see also, Alhambra Foundry
v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 402 (CIT, 1985). Accordingly, we compared the amount of
interest actually paid during the review period to the amount that would have been paid
at the benchmark rate.
Because the responses indicate that individual RF-153 loans can cover several export
shipments to different destinations, we divided the total interest savings by the value of
respondents' total exports of all products to all markets during the review period to
obtain an estimated net bounty or grant of 1.37 percent ad valorem.
It is the Department's policy to take into account program-wide changes which (1) occur
after the review period but before our preliminary determination and (2) can be
measured. A "program-wide" change is defined as a change which is (1) not limited to an
individual firm or firms and (2) effectuated by an official act. The termination of RF-153
financing meets all of the above criteria. Therefore, there is no duty deposit rate for this
program.

B. Discounts of Foreign Currency Accounts Receivable Under Circular RF-21

Administered by the Central Bank, this program provides financing for up to 80 percent
of the f.o.b. value of export shipments. Operations under this program are documented
through bills of exchange in U.S. dollars which are discounted in the same currency by
local banks. RF-21 loans can be given for a maximum term of one year, with equal
repayments of principal at periods not exceeding six months. Interest is paid on June 30
and December 31 (or at the maturity of the loan). In order to obtain export financing
under this program, the exporter must show documented evidence of an export
transaction to be completed within 30 days.
Communication A-1205 preserved this program in its same form from the exporter's
point of view but allowed commercial banks to source funds directly from international
banks as well as from the Central Bank. However, unlike RF- 153 financing, Central
Bank-sourced RF-21 financing was not completely disallowed after January 1, 1990.
According to the responses, CIDEC and Meiners received RF-21 loans on which interest
was paid during the review period. Because only exporters are eligible for these loans, we
preliminarily determine that they are countervailable to the extent that they are
provided at preferential rates.
We used as our benchmark the same interest rate described above in reference to RF-153
financing. Because RF-21 loans are tied to individual shipments, we calculated the amount
of interest that would have been paid at the benchmark rate on loans covering shipments
to the United States and subtracted the amount of interest that was actually paid. We then
divided the result by the value of respondents' exports of all products to the United States
during the review period to obtain an estimated net bounty or grant of 0.19 percent ad
valorem.

C. Tax Deduction Under Decree 173/85

Decree 173 provides a deduction from taxable income equal to ten percent of export
earnings. It is administered by the General Director of Taxation.
Because only exporters are eligible to claim this deduction, we preliminarily determine
that it is countervailable. According to the responses, all the respondent companies
claimed this deduction on their tax returns filed during the review period.

*28928

In order to calculate the benefit under this program, we divided respondents'
tax savings from the program by their total exports of all products to all markets to
obtain an estimated net bounty or grant of 0.01 percent ad valorem.
This program was indefinitely suspended by Decree 553/89 of May 2, 1989. We are
treating the suspension as a program-wide change for purposes of our preliminary
determination because the suspension meets the program-wide change criteria described
above in section I. B. Accordingly, there is no duty deposit rate for this program. We will
examine any possible residual benefits at verification.

II. Program Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer a Bounty or Grant

We preliminarily determine that bounties or grants are not being provided to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Argentina of leather under the following
program:

Resolution 321: Embargo on Cattle Hide Exports

Since 1972, the GOA has implemented two different types of restrictions on the export of
cattle hides: export embargoes and export taxes. In 1972, the GOA implemented an
embargo on the export of cattle hides under Decree 2861. This embargo was lifted in 1979
and was replaced by an export tax under Resolution 909. In September 1985, the GOA
again instituted an embargo under Resolution 321.
According to the responses, the 1972 embargo was instituted to promote the
development of a domestic leather tanning industry pursuant to a general policy of
import substitution. Cattle production increased in the late 1970's and reached its highest
point in the years 1977-1978. Therefore, the supply of hides also was at a high point.
In 1979, the GOA and the United States reached an agreement during the course of a 301
investigation to replace the embargo with an export tax. This tax was to be phased out
completely in three years. However, by 1980, Argentina had not met the terms of the
agreement. Although Argentina made the scheduled tariff reductions in 1979-1980, it
implemented another measure which effectively negated part of the concession. This
measure instituted a minimum export price on cattle hides which was used instead of the
transaction price in determining the amount of tax to be charged on exports. Since the
minimum export price was higher than the transaction price, the effective tax was higher
than that which had been agreed. Moreover, in 1981, Argentina failed to implement the
scheduled tariff reduction called for in the agreement.
In October 1981, another section 301 petition was filed regarding Argentina's breach of
the 1979 Agreement. Although the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a
301 investigation, it was dropped shortly thereafter with the consent of the U.S. leather
industry. The USTR decided that the issue was more appropriately pursued under section
125 of the Trade Act, which gave the President the authority to terminate the 1979 U.S.-
Argentina Agreement. In 1982, the U.S. and Argentina exchanged diplomatic notes
terminating the agreement.
By 1985, Argentina was in the midst of a severe economic and political crisis. The GOA
was facing acute levels of inflation, labor strikes, and social unrest. As a result, the
government instituted a "cheap beef policy." According to the responses, this policy led to
the imposition of the current embargo, as described below. Beef is one of the major
components of the Argentine economy. Any increase in the price of beef has a significant
impact on consumer prices and, thus, the country's inflation rate. Argentina, therefore,
has a history of instituting ceilings on the price of beef in order to prevent the need for
further wage increases and the resulting inflationary spiral higher wages could induce. As
a result of this policy, the slaughter of cattle fell, creating an artificially low supply of
hides. According to the responses, the GOA imposed the current embargo in order to
keep the hide supply from further degenerating and prices from increasing.
Because the embargo applies only to cattle hides, which are sold primarily, if not
exclusively, to leather tanners, we preliminarily determine that the embargo is limited to
a specific industry. However, regarding the question of whether the embargo bestows a
benefit, we preliminarily determine that the evidence currently before the Department is
inconclusive as to whether the embargo causes hide prices to be lower than they would
have been absent the embargo.
In an attempt to determine what the prices for hides in Argentina would be in the
absence of the embargo, we compared Argentine hide prices to world hide prices during
the review period. The comparison indicates that Argentine hides are cheaper than hides
traded by the six largest exporting nations. However, the evidence on the record does not
support the conclusion that the disparity between Argentine and world hide prices is a
consequence of the current embargo. Prices in Argentina are determined by a
complicated set of factors, including government economic policies, hyperinflation,
currency devaluation, fluctuations in the slaughter of cattle which affect supply, and hide
quality. Based on the information currently available to the Department, we are not able
to distill the effect of the embargo from other variables which affect hide prices.
Furthermore, when analyzing hide prices during the period in which the 1985 embargo
was imposed, we found no identifiable consequences of the embargo. In fact, there is
evidence to suggest that prices actually rose after the embargo was imposed. Although
the petition indicates that Argentine hide prices prior to the imposition of the first export
restriction in 1972 (specifically, in the years 1960, 1965 and 1970) were slightly higher
than prices for similar U.S. and British hides, the Argentine currency prior to 1972 may
have been overvalued, thus artificially raising the price in terms of U.S. dollars.
Moreover, price comparisons from over two decades ago are not necessarily indicative of
what prices would have been during the review period had export restrictions first been
imposed at that time. This point is particularly relevant, given the fact that the Argentine
economy has experienced dramatic change since 1972.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we cannot establish a link between the
embargo under Resolution 321 and any differential between Argentine and world hide
prices. Nor are we able to determine that the embargo causes hide prices to be lower than
they would have been in the absence of the embargo. Thus, we preliminarily determine
that the embargo does not bestow a bounty or grant on manufacturers, producers or
exporters of leather in Argentina.

III Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used

Based on the responses, we preliminarily determine that manufacturers, producers, or
exporters in Argentina of leather did not apply for, claim or receive benefits during the
review period for exports of leather to the United States under the following programs:

A. Export Payments Under Decree 176: Programa Especial de Exportaciones (PEEX)

In February 1986, the government established Decree 176 to provide "special incentives
to producer and exporter companies of promotional

*28929

goods and services" which
participate in the Reembolso program under Decree 1555/86 and fulfill requirements of
the Special Export Program. The PEEX program provides a payment of 15 percent of the
increase in a company's export sales above a base amount. An additional payment equal
to five percent of the increase is available if the export sales are made to new markets or
previously lost markets. The PEEX program was repealed on August 4, 1988, by Decree
963.

B. Post-Export Financing: OPRAC 1-9

Under this program the Central Bank provides low-interest post-export financing to
exporters for up to 30 percent of foreign currency earnings from exports.

C. Reembolso

The Reembolso program was established in 1971. It authorizes a cash refund, upon
export, of taxes "that bear, directly or indirectly" on exported products and/or their
component raw materials, for the purpose of promoting exports. In October 1986, the
GOA revised the Reembolso program through Decree 1555/86 by making it "exclusively a
refund of indirect taxes physically included in the incorporated costs of the exported
goods," independent of other "macro-economic functions."

D. Financing Investments for Exports (FIDEX)

The FIDEX program was created under Communication A-980. It allows exporters to use
their export earnings to repay external financing directly, without having to sell the
earnings to the Central Bank first. To be eligible, an exporter must present a proposal for a
new investment project or expansion of current capacity which will generate additional
exports. The minimum investment required is one million dollars. According to the
responses, the FIDEX program was never implemented due to fiscal and monetary
restraints in Argentina and the need for foreign reserves.

E. Corrientes Regional Tax Incentives

Under National Law 20560, Corrientes Law 5751/74, and Decrees 2633/75, 9641/81,
and 32031/76, companies located in the Corrientes Province are eligible for certain tax
benefits such as exemption from income, capital, value-added, real estate, stamp, and
municipal taxes.

F. Industrial Parks

Firms which operate in designated industrial parks receive special credit from local
banks, tax exemptions, and infrastructure benefits.

G. Low-Cost Loans for Projects Outside Buenos Aires

The 1977 Industrial Promotion Law for Projects Outside Buenos Aires provides
government-mandated, low-cost loans to eligible companies.

H. Exemption From Stamp Tax Under Decree 186/76

Under Decree 186/76, certain Argentine industries are eligible to receive an exemption
from paying stamp taxes.

I. Government Trade Promotion Programs

This program is designed to increase the participation of Argentine companies in
international trade fairs and missions. The program also provides technical assistance.

J. Incentives for Export From Southern Ports

This program provides a payment upon export of goods shipped through southern ports.
The payments range from eight to thirteen percent, depending on the port.

Verification

In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the information used in
making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 355.38, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford
interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination at 10
a.m. on Monday, September 10, 1990, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3708,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish
to participate in the hearing must submit a request within ten days of the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, room B-099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; (3) the reason for attending; and (4) a list of the issues to be
discussed. In addition, ten copies of the business proprietary version and five copies of
the nonproprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary no later than August 31, 1990. Ten copies of the business proprietary version
and five copies of the nonproprietary version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to
the Assistant Secretary no later than September 7, 1990. An interested party may make
an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case or rebuttal
briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in accordance with section 355.38 of the
Commerce Department's regulations and will be considered if received within the time
limits specified in this notice.
This determination is published pursuant to section 703(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).
Dated: July 9, 1990.

Eric I. Garfinkel,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 90-16495 Filed 7-13-90; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M