Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. et al. (American manufacturers); Great Neck 351 Capar Components Corp., party in interest; Sprague Electric Company 304 295 343 Flintkote Company, Glens Falls Division (American manufacturer); Independent Cement Co., party in interest, C.R.D. 79-5--- 305 Great Neck Saw Manufacturing, Inc., party in interest; Armstrong Bros. 296, 344 305 308 Mitsubishi International Corporation, C.R.D. 79–10_ 350 Nadel & Sons Toy Corp., C.R.D. 79–3_. 302 SCM Corporation (American manufacturer); Brother International Corporation, party in interest, C.R.D. 79-11. 351 Sprague Electric Company (American manufacturer); Capar Components 304 (VI) CASES REPORTED IN FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT Airco, Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 345, C.R.D. 79–9; 468 F. Supp. 1327 Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. Et Al. v. United States (Great Neck Saw Manufac- Exxon Corporation (Successor to Humble Oil & Refining Company) Chevron Michelin Tire Corporation v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 308, C.R.D .79-6; 469 F. Supp. 270 Pharmacia Laboratories Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 166, C.D. 4798; 470 F. Supp. 853 Pistorino & Co., Inc. v. United States, 81 Cust. Ct. 131, C.D. 4779; 463 F. Supp. 1311 Reliable Chemical Company v. United States, 81 Cust. Ct. 154, C.R.D. 78–11; 465 F. Supp. 1291 Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 11, C.D. 4783; 468 F. Supp. 1318 Sprague Electric Company v. United States, (Capar Components Corp., Party in Interest), 81 Cust. Ct. 168, C.R.D. 78–18; 462 F. Supp. 966 Zwicker Knitting Mills v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 34, C.D. 4786; 469 F. Supp. 727 (VII) DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT Customs (C.D. 4782) ASG INDUSTRIES, INC., PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD COMPANY, AND CE GLASS v. UNITED STATES Float glass-Countervailing duties Plaintiffs, domestic manufacturers and wholesalers of float glass, have petitioned the Secretary of the Treasury for imposition of countervailing duties on such merchandise produced in the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to section 303 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 331 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974. Following the denial of their administrative petition, plaintiffs instituted action under section 516(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 321 (f) (1) of the Trade Act of 1974. Plaintiffs allege low-interest loans, investment subsidies in the form of cash grants and tax credits given to the producers of float glass in West Germany are subject to countervailing duties. Defendant contends these bounties or grants are not countervailable, since they did not tend to distort international trade. Held, plaintiffs have failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the negative finding by the Secretary of the Treasury. [Judgment for defendant.] Court No. 76-3-00667 (Decided January 5, 1979) Stewart & Ikenson (Eugene L. Stewart and Frederick L. Ikenson of counsel) for the plaintiffs. Barbara Allen Babcock, Assistant Attorney General (David M. Cohen, Chief, Customs Section; Joseph I. Liebman, John J. Mahon and Sidney N. Weiss, trial attorneys), for the defendant. FORD, Judge: This action involves cross-motions for summary judgment filed pursuant to rules 4.12 and 8.2 of the rules of this court. Plaintiffs, domestic manufacturers and wholesalers of float (1) glass, allege certain bounties or grants were being paid or bestowed upon the manufacture of float glass in the Federal Republic of Germany. Plaintiffs urge such importations of float glass are, therefore, subject to assessment of countervailing duties as provided for in section 303 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 331(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1978, 2049. Defendant contends plaintiffs have failed to establish that the alleged bounties or grants possess the requisite effect upon international trade which would require imposition of countervailing duties. The essential facts relating to assistance given the two glass manufacturers in the Federal Republic of Germany are not in dispute. nor is the chronology leading to the final determination of the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) in finding that such assistance did not amount to a bounty or grant within the meaning of section 303 (a), as amended, supra. The statements of material facts filed by the parties pursuant to rule 8.2(b) of the rules of this court, and upon which the parties contend there is no triable issue, established that plaintiffs are domestic manufacturers and wholesalers of float glass. On June 3, 1974, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Commissioner of Customs alleging bounties or grants were being paid to manufacturers of float glass in the Federal Republic of Germany. A "Notice of Receipt of Countervailing Duty Petition" was published in the Federal Register, 40 F.R. 2718, on January 15, 1975. As a result of the petition, an administrative investigation was conducted by the Department of Treasury with the assistance of the U.S. Customs Service pursuant to section 303(a), supra, and 19 CFR 159.47 (c) (1975) in order to make a preliminary and final determination. On June 30, 1975, a "Notice of Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination" was published in the Federal Register, 40 F.R. 27499, as follows: On the basis of an investigation conducted pursuant to §159.47 (c) Customs Regulations (19 CFR 159.47 (c)), it has tentatively been determined that benefits have been received under various West German Federal and State Government regional development programs. Government aid to these regional areas consists of investment grant subsidies and bonuses for capital expenditures relating to construction or expansion of plants, low interest loans, and special railway tariff rates. Benefits derived from programs such as those which are the subject of this investigation can, in some circumstances, constitute bounties or grants within the meaning of the law. Since the information thus far made available concerning these programs has not been sufficient to permit a thorough analysis of their nature and effect, it has been determined preliminarily that imports of float glass from West Germany benefit from the payment or bestowal of a bounty or grant, directly or indirectly, within the meaning of the [sic] section 303 of the Tariff Act of |