Notice2021-14142
Ripe Olives From Spain: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 2, 2021
Effective
July 2, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain producers and/or exporters of ripe olives from Spain, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), November 28, 2017, through December 31, 2018.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35266-35267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14142]
[[Page 35266]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-469-818]
Ripe Olives From Spain: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; 2017-2018
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain
producers and/or exporters of ripe olives from Spain, received
countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), November
28, 2017, through December 31, 2018.
DATES: Effective July 2, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kolberg or Dusten Hom, AD/CVD
Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785, (202) 482-5075,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 28, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of
this CVD administrative review in the Federal Register.\1\ On April 5,
2021, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of this
administrative review until June 25, 2021.\2\ We invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On May 7, 2021, we
received case briefs from Alimentary Group DCoop S.Coop. And. (DCoop),
ASEMESA, Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.Coop. And. (Agro Sevilla), and Angel
Camcho Alimentacion, S.L. (Camacho), the European Investment Fund (the
EIF), the Government of Spain (the GOS), and Musco Family Olive Company
(Musco).\3\ On May 14, 2021, we received rebuttal briefs from ASEMESA,
Agro Sevilla, and Camacho, DCoop, and Musco.\4\ For a complete
description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results,
see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Ripe Olives from Spain: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 85 FR 84294
(December 28, 2020), and accompanying Preliminary Decision
Memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum) (collectively,
Preliminary Results).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Ripe Olives from Spain: Extension of
Deadline for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2017-2018,'' dated April 5, 2021.
\3\ See EIF's Letter, ``2019 Administrative Review of the CVD
Order on Ripe Olives from Spain-Case brief,'' dated May 7, 2021; see
also ASEMESA's, Agro Sevilla's, and Camacho's Letter, ``Case Brief
of ASEMESA, Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.Coop.And. (`Agro Sevilla'), and
Angel Camacho Alimentacion, S.L. (`Camacho') Ripe Olives from Spain
(C-469-818),'' dated May 7, 2021; GOS's Letter, ``Case of the
Government of Spain in relation to the Post-Preliminary
Determination, issued by the Department of Commerce on April 22,
2021, regarding the first CVD administrative review of Ripe Olives
from Spain,'' dated May 7, 2021; Musco's Letter, ``Ripe Olives from
Spain; 1st Administrative Review-Case Brief of Musco,'' dated May 7,
2021; and Dcoop's Letter, ``Ripe Olives from Spain: Resubmission of
Case Brief,'' dated May 12, 2021.
\4\ See Dcoop's Letter, ``Ripe Olives from Spain: Rebuttal
Brief,'' dated May 14, 2021; see also ASEMESA's, Agro Sevilla's, and
Camacho's Letter, ``Rebuttal Brief of ASEMESA, Agro Sevilla and
Camacho--Ripe Olives from Spain (C-469-818),'' dated May 14, 2021;
and Musco's Letter, ``Ripe Olives from Spain: 1st Administrative
Review-Rebuttal Brief of Musco,'' dated May 14, 2021.
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of
Ripe Olives from Spain; 2017-2018,'' dated concurrently with, and
hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order are ripe olives from Spain. For a
complete description of the scope of this order, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and
rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A
list of these issues are identified in the Appendix to this notice. The
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and CVD
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to
registered users at <a href="http://access.trade.gov">http://access.trade.gov</a>. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly
at <a href="http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/">http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/</a>.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the comments received from interested parties, we revised
the calculation of the net countervailable subsidy rates for the
respondents: DCoop, Agro Sevilla, and Camacho. For a discussion of
these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Methodology
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section
751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each
of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we determine that
there is a subsidy (i.e., a financial contribution by an ``authority''
that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient) and that the subsidy is
specific.\6\ For a full description of the methodology underlying our
conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding
financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding
benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making this final determination, Commerce is relying, in part,
on facts otherwise available, including adverse facts available (AFA),
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For a full discussion
of our application of AFA, see the Preliminary Results and the section
``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inference'' in the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of Review
We determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates for
the period of November 28, 2017, through December 31, 2018:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Exporter/producer rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP Andalusia..................... 7.01
Angel Camacho Alimentacion S.L.............................. 5.23
Alimentary Group DCoop S.Coop. And.......................... 22.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We intend to disclose to interested parties the calculations and
analysis performed in the final results of this review within five days
of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Assessment
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this
review. Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of this publication of
the final results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely
summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the
assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant
entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory
injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication).
Cash Deposit Requirements
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce also
intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties in the
[[Page 35267]]
amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above. For
all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or
all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or 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 sanctionable violation.
Notification to Interested Parties
These final results are issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: June 25, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
Appendix--List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Subsidies Valuation
V. Loan Interest Rate Benchmark and Discount Rates
VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
VII. Analysis of Programs
VIII. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether Commerce Properly Interpreted and Applied the
Standard Established by Section 771B(1) of the Act for Determining
``Substantially Dependent'' Demand
Comment 2: Whether the EU CAP Pillar I--BPS is De Jure Specific
Comment 3: Whether Commerce Used an Incorrect Sales Denominator
To Calculate Agro Sevilla's Subsidy Rate
Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Exclude Re-Sales and
Purchases of Molinos Not Used To Produce Subject Merchandise From
Camacho's Subsidy Rate Calculation
Comment 5: Whether the PROSOL Program is Specific
Comment 6: Whether the ICO--National Investment Program is
Specific
Comment 7: Whether the Andalusia Energy Agency for Sustainable
Energy Development for Andalusia Scheme is Specific
Comment 8: Whether the European Investment Fund Loans Program is
Specific
Comment 9: Whether Commerce Should Allocate Olive Subsidy
Benefits to Sales of Olives Only
Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should Adjust its Calculation for
Yield Loss
Comment 11: Whether Commerce Should Revise its Calculation for
the Two Coop Respondents To Eliminate Double Counting of Grower
Quantities
Comment 12: Whether Commerce Should Apply AFA to Agro Sevilla's
First-Tier Coops and Member Growers
Comment 13: Whether Commerce Should Correct Ministerial Errors
for Agro Sevilla
Comment 14: Whether Commerce Should Correct Ministerial Errors
for Camacho
Comment 15: Whether Commerce Should Apply AFA to Camacho's
Growers
Comment 16: Whether Commerce Should Apply AFA to Dcoop's First-
Tier Coops and Member Growers
Comment 17: Whether Commerce Should Find That All Dcoop's
Growers Received Greening Benefits
Comment 18: Whether Commerce Should Use Dcoop's Calendar Year
2018 Grower Data or, in the Alternative, Should Correct Ministerial
Errors
IX. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2021-14142 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 2, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.