95-687. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 2734-2738]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-687]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-549-813]
    
    
    Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
    Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit 
    From Thailand
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1995.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Frederick or John Brinkmann, 
    Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
    Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
    (202) 482-0186 or 482-5288, respectively.
    
    PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: We preliminarily determine that canned 
    pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand is being, or is likely to be, sold 
    in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 
    733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act'')(1994). The 
    estimated margins of sales at less than fair value are shown in the 
    ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
    
    Case History
    
        Since the initiation of this investigation on June 28, 1994 (59 FR 
    34408), the following events have occurred.
        On July 25, 1994, the United States International Trade Commission 
    (``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination in 
    this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-706).
        On August 3, 1994, we named the following four companies as the 
    respondents in this investigation: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole 
    Packaged Foods Company, and Dole Thailand, Ltd. (collectively 
    ``Dole''); The Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (``TIPCO''); Siam Agro 
    Industry Pineapple and Others Co., Ltd. (``SAICO''); and Malee Sampran 
    Factory Public Co., Ltd. (``Malee''). These four companies accounted 
    for at least 60 percent of the exports of CPF to the United States 
    during the period of investigation (POI) (January through June 1994) 
    (see Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, dated August 3, 
    1994). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.42(b)(1994), we issued 
    antidumping duty questionnaires to the four companies on August 5, 
    1994.
        Section A of the Department's questionnaire requesting general 
    information concerning the company's corporate structure and business 
    practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the 
    sales of the merchandise in all markets was received from the four 
    respondents on September 2, 1994. We analyzed each respondent's home 
    market and third country sales of the subject merchandise in accordance 
    with 19 CFR 353.48(a)(1994), and determined that the home market was 
    not viable for any of the respondents. Germany was selected as the 
    appropriate third country market for all respondents in accordance with 
    19 CFR 353.49(b)(1994).
        On August 10, 1994, Dole requested that the POI be modified to 
    coincide with its fiscal half-year accounting period. We accepted 
    Dole's proposal on August 18, 1994, and modified the POI for Dole to 
    cover that period from January 2, 1994, through June 18, 1994 (see 
    Memorandum from Gary Taverman to Barbara R. Stafford, dated August 18, 
    1994). The POI was not modified for the other three respondents.
        On August 10 and 24, 1994, Dole claimed that for purposes of 
    reporting U.S. sales, it was impossible for the company to distinguish 
    between its pineapple grown and canned in Thailand and its pineapple 
    grown and canned in the Philippines. Therefore, Dole requested that it 
    be allowed to report all of its U.S. sales of CPF, including those of 
    Philippine origin, for each product category. Dole then proposed that 
    an allocation ratio based on 1993 shipments to the United States be 
    applied to determine the share of Thai-origin CPF sold during the POI. 
    By doing so, Dole stated the Department could calculate a less than 
    fair value margin for Dole's U.S. sales of Thai-origin merchandise 
    during the POI based on a ratio of Thai origin to Thai and Philippine 
    origin merchandise.
        In addition, Dole requested that it be allowed to exclude all sales 
    of 5.5 ounce cans of crushed pineapple which accounted for an 
    insignificant volume of its U.S. sales. Dole claimed that this product 
    is a unique product which is
    
    [[Page 2735]]
    
    not produced by any other canned pineapple producer in the world nor 
    sold by Dole in any other markets. On September 6, 1994, we granted 
    Dole's requests concerning the reporting of its U.S. sales, but 
    reserved our decision on the appropriate methodology for calculating a 
    less than fair value margin for Dole's Thai-origin merchandise until we 
    had an opportunity to review further its submissions (see Memorandum 
    from Gary Taverman to Richard W. Moreland, dated September 6, 1994).
        Sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire which request 
    home-market sales listings and U.S. sales listings, respectively, were 
    received from Dole, TIPCO, and SAICO on September 20, 1994. Malee's 
    Section B and C responses were received on September 22, 1994.
        Supplemental questionnaires regarding Sections A, B and C of the 
    Department's questionnaire were issued to Dole on October 14, 1994, and 
    to TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee on October 18, 1994.
        On October 21, 1994, we received a timely request from Maui 
    Pineapple Company, Ltd. and the International Longshoremen's and 
    Warehousemen's Union (the petitioners) to postpone the preliminary 
    determination until no later than 210 days after the date of the filing 
    of the petition in this investigation, pursuant to 19 CFR 
    353.15(c)(1994). On October 26, 1994, finding no compelling reason to 
    deny the request, we granted this request and postponed this final 
    determination until January 4, 1995 (59 FR 54546, November 1, 1994).
        Dole submitted supplemental responses to Sections A, B and C of the 
    questionnaire on November 4, and December 21, 1994. Supplemental 
    responses from TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee were submitted on November 8, 
    1994.
        On November 21 and 23, 1994, respondents TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee 
    requested that the Department confirm their selection of invoice date 
    as the proper date of sale for all reported sales. We issued a decision 
    on this issue on November 29, 1994 (see Memorandum from Richard W. 
    Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford, dated November 29, 1994). 
    Subsequently, on December 8, 1994, the Department modified this 
    decision (see memoranda to file dated December 5, December 7, and 
    December 8, 1994), and granted respondents' request to use invoice date 
    as the date of sale for all reported sales. This issue is discussed 
    further in the ``Date of Sale'' section below.
    
    Cost of Production Allegation
    
        On September 29, 1994, the petitioners alleged that TIPCO, SAICO, 
    and Malee sold the subject merchandise in Germany during the POI at 
    prices below the cost of production (COP). The petitioners filed a 
    similar allegation against Dole on September 30, 1994.
        Based upon our analysis of these allegations, we found that there 
    are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TIPCO, SAICO, Malee, 
    and Dole sold CPF in Germany at prices which were below the COP. 
    Accordingly, on October 21, 1994, we initiated COP investigations 
    against these four respondents pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act 
    (1994) (see Memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford, 
    dated October 21, 1994).
        Section D of the Department's questionnaire requesting cost of 
    production and constructed value data was issued to the four 
    respondents on November 7, 1994. Dole's Section D response was received 
    on December 19, 1994. Section D responses from TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee 
    were received on December 27, 1994. Because this information was 
    received too late to be considered for purposes of the preliminary 
    determination, we will analyze this data and use it in the final 
    determination to determine whether any of the respondents made third 
    country sales at prices below the COP.
    
    Postponement of Final Determination
    
        Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act (1994), Dole requested 
    on January 4, 1995, that in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
    determination in this investigation, the Department postpone the final 
    determination until no later than 135 days after the date of 
    publication of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal 
    Register. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.20(b) (1994), because our preliminary 
    determination is affirmative and Dole is a significant producer of CPF, 
    and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the date 
    of the final determination until the 135th day after the date of 
    publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    
    Scope of the Investigation
    
        The product covered by this investigation is canned pineapple fruit 
    (CPF). For the purposes of this investigation, CPF is defined as 
    pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, 
    including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that 
    is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar 
    syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 
    2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
    United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-
    based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar 
    (i.e., juice-packed). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
    convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
    of this proceeding is dispositive.
    
    Period of Investigation
    
        As stated above, the POI is January 1, through June 30, 1994, for 
    TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee; and January 2, through June 18, 1994, for Dole 
    (see ``Case History'' section above).
    
    Such or Similar Comparisons
    
        We determined that all products covered by this investigation 
    constitute a single category of such or similar merchandise. Where 
    there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third country 
    market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise 
    comparisons on the basis of the criteria defined in Appendix V to the 
    antidumping questionnaire, on file in Room B-099 of the main building 
    of the Department of Commerce.
        In accordance with 19 CFR 353.58(1994), we made comparisons at the 
    same level of trade, where possible. Where we were not able to match 
    sales at the same level of trade, we made comparisons without regard to 
    the level of trade.
        Dole stated that its various customers categories (i.e., retail, 
    foodservice and industrial) constituted three separate levels of trade. 
    However, based on information contained in its response, we 
    preliminarily determine that Dole sold CPF to two distinct levels of 
    trade in both the U.S. and German markets. The first level is comprised 
    of sales to customers in the retail and foodservice sectors (Level I); 
    the second is comprised of sales to customers in the industrial sector 
    (Level II).
        We have reached this conclusion based on the reported functional 
    differences of Dole's customers. See Import Administration Policy 
    Bulletin 92/1 dated July 29, 1992. Level I customers can be 
    characterized as large national and regional chains which resell CPF to 
    local or independent retail stores or food service outlets. Level II 
    customers can be characterized as companies that use CPF as an 
    ingredient in the production of other food products.
    
    [[Page 2736]]
    
    Date of Sale
    
        TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee requested that the Department determine 
    whether their proposed date of sale methodology (i.e., invoice date) 
    was appropriate based on information contained in their respective 
    questionnaire responses. After an analysis of this information, 
    additional data presented by the respondents concerning this issue, as 
    well as the arguments raised by the petitioners, we instructed TIPCO, 
    SAICO, and Malee to report the original order date as the date of sale 
    unless there was a change to the essential terms of sale (i.e., price 
    and/or quantity) prior to the date of invoicing. For those sales where 
    there was a modification to the price and/or quantity, we asked these 
    respondents to report the invoice date as the date of sale. The invoice 
    date was selected, rather than the actual date of the modification, in 
    order to reduce the administrative burden claimed by respondents in 
    obtaining the actual order modification date.
        In response to the Department's instructions, respondents have 
    argued that both the buyer and seller do not consider the terms to be 
    fixed until the date of shipment and that the Department should accept 
    the date of invoice as the date of sale for all sales. The 
    questionnaire responses, which indicate that the contracts or initial 
    agreements do not establish that the terms are binding and that either 
    party can change the order at any time up to the invoice date, support 
    this assertion.
        The Department considers the date of sale to be the date upon which 
    all material terms of the contract for sale are set, especially price 
    and quantity (see General Electric Co. versus United States, Slip Op. 
    93-55 at 4 (CIT, April 21, 1993); Toho Titanium Co. versus United 
    States, 743 F. Supp. 888, 890 (CIT 1990)). Our review of the record in 
    light of the arguments subsequently presented by the respondents 
    indicates that the material terms of any order can be changed prior to 
    the invoice date. Further, we note that, for a significant number of 
    sales during the POI, price or quantity did change prior to the invoice 
    date. Therefore, upon further examination of the facts of this issue, 
    the Department has determined that the invoice date is the appropriate 
    date of sale for all TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee sales.
    
    Fair Value Comparisons
    
        To determine whether sales of CPF from Thailand to the United 
    States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States 
    price (``USP'') to the foreign market value (``FMV''), as specified in 
    the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of 
    this notice.
        As noted in the ``Case History'' section above, Dole has reported 
    all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, including those of 
    Philippine origin, for each product category where Dole had shipments 
    from both Thailand and the Philippines to the United States during 
    1993. In order to calculate a less than fair value margin based on an 
    estimated quantity of Dole's U.S. sales of Thai-origin merchandise 
    during the POI, we have weighted the dumping margin for each product 
    category by the ratio of the shipments of subject merchandise from 
    Thailand to the total volume shipped from both Thailand and the 
    Philippines during the last seven accounting periods of 1993 (i.e., 
    July 19 through December 31, 1993). We used the July-December 
    accounting periods as the basis for establishing the ratio rather than 
    the entire 1993 period because Dole's average inventory turnover rate 
    is reported to be six to seven months.
        For certain U.S. and German market sales, Dole reported its re-sale 
    of subject merchandise purchased from unrelated producers in Thailand. 
    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act (1994) specifies that FMV be calculated 
    based on sales of ``such or similar merchandise''. The term ``such or 
    similar merchandise'' is defined by section 771(16) of the Act (1994) 
    as merchandise which is produced in the same country and by the same 
    person as the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation. 
    Therefore, we cannot use sales of CPF produced by persons other than 
    Dole when calculating FMV. Accordingly, we have excluded all of Dole's 
    German sales of subject merchandise it did not produce from our 
    calculation of FMV.
        Similarly, in calculating USP, we also determined that it is 
    appropriate to exclude all of Dole's U.S. sales of the subject 
    merchandise it did not produce. However, because we were unable to 
    determine which particular U.S. sales were of merchandise produced by 
    firms other than Dole, we have weighted the dumping margin for each 
    product category identified by Dole. We weighted the dumping margin by 
    applying a ratio of the volume of Dole-produced product to the combined 
    total volumes of Dole-produced and purchased product shipped to the 
    United States during 1993, allowing us to calculate a margin based on 
    an estimated quantity of Dole-produced product. We note that this 
    weighing period is different than that used to weigh Thai- and non-Thai 
    produced merchandise. However, the only information available for 
    purposes of weighing these sales was for the whole calendar year 1993.
        In addition, we preliminarily determined that Dole should have 
    reported as U.S. sales certain shipments made during the POI which Dole 
    claimed were pursuant to a long-term agreement negotiated prior to the 
    POI (see Toho Titanium Co. versus United States, 743 F. Supp. 888, 891 
    (CIT 1990); General Electric Co. v. United States, Slip. Op. 93-55 at 4 
    (CIT, April 21, 1993). Based upon our analysis of the agreement, it 
    appears that the price terms are indefinite and subject to Dole's 
    control. Because these shipments were not reported, we are applying the 
    average of all positive margins to one-half of the maximum quantity 
    specified in the agreement to be purchased during 1994 (i.e., we have 
    divided the yearly maximum quantity in half to correspond to our six-
    month POI). Dole will be required to report these shipments for the 
    final determination.
    
    United States Price
    
        For TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee, we based USP on purchase price (PP), 
    in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act (1994), because all of 
    each company's U.S. sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place 
    prior to importation into the United States and exporter's sales price 
    (ESP) methodology, in those instances, was not otherwise indicated.
        SAICO failed to report certain U.S. sales in its revised Section C 
    response which we determined to be sales made during the POI. We 
    included these sales, as they were included in SAICO's initial 
    submission of Section C response, and made appropriate adjustments for 
    charges based on the information available (see Concurrence Memorandum, 
    dated January 4, 1995).
        For Dole, where sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place 
    after importation into the United States, we based USP on ESP, in 
    accordance with section 772(c) of the Act (1994). For a small number of 
    Dole's U.S. sales which took place prior to importation into the United 
    States, we preliminarily determine USP to be based on ESP because: (1) 
    The merchandise was introduced into the physical inventory of Dole's 
    U.S. warehouses after importation and, thus, was not shipped directly 
    from the cannery in Thailand to the unrelated U.S. customer; (2) all 
    the selling activities associated with Dole's U.S. sales, including 
    these sales, are handled in the United States through Dole's U.S. sales 
    office by unrelated brokers located in the United States; and (3) it 
    appears that Dole's canneries in Thailand have no control over the 
    prices
    
    [[Page 2737]]
    
    charged to the U.S. customers. Therefore, because Dole's U.S. sales 
    office acts as more than a processor of sales-related documentation, we 
    consider these U.S. sales to be ESP transactions. (See Final 
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New Minivans From 
    Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21945 (May 26, 1992).
    
    Malee
    
        For Malee, we calculated PP based on FOB and C&F prices charged to 
    unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions in 
    accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act (1994), where 
    appropriate, for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland 
    freight, and ocean freight. We also made deductions in accordance with 
    section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where appropriate, for bank 
    charges.
    
    SAICO
    
        For SAICO, we calculated PP based on FOB prices charged to 
    unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions in 
    accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act (1994), where 
    appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and 
    foreign brokerage and handling. We also made deductions in accordance 
    with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where appropriate, for 
    bank charges.
    
    TIPCO
    
        For TIPCO, we calculated PP based on FOB and C&F prices charged to 
    unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions in 
    accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
    appropriate, for rebates. In addition, we made deductions for the 
    following movement expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of 
    the Act (1994): foreign brokerage and handling, port charges, foreign 
    inland freight, and ocean freight. We also made deductions in 
    accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
    appropriate, for bank charges and warranty expenses.
    
    Dole
    
        We calculated Dole's ESP sales based on packed, FOB Dole's 
    warehouse and delivered prices to unrelated customers in the United 
    States. We made deductions in accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.56(a)(2)(1994), where appropriate, for discounts, rebates, and 
    direct selling expenses including unrelated commissions, credit and 
    warranty expenses. We also made deductions in accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.41(d)(2)(i) (1994), where appropriate, for foreign brokerage and 
    handling, freight expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. duty and 
    harbor fees. For purposes of this preliminary determination, we 
    considered certain advertising expenses to be direct selling expenses 
    and have deducted them in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2)(1994). In 
    addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses, including inventory 
    carrying expenses, market development and warehousing expenses in 
    accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2)(1994). The ``in and out'' 
    warehousing expense claimed by Dole as a direct selling expense was 
    reclassified as an indirect selling expense because, based on 
    information on the record, it was not possible to determine that this 
    expense directly applies to the sales under investigation. An amount 
    for revenue Dole earned on certain sales where it charged its customers 
    for special delivery terms was added to USP in order to offset the 
    additional expenses incurred by Dole on the delivery of these sales.
        We recalculated Dole's reported credit expenses in instances where 
    Dole had not reported a shipment and/or payment date because the 
    merchandise had not yet been shipped and/or paid for at the time of the 
    filing of this response. For those sales missing both a shipment and 
    payment date, we used the average credit days of all transactions with 
    a reported shipment and payment date. For those sales with a missing 
    payment date only, we inserted the date of the preliminary 
    determination.
        We excluded from our analysis Dole's U.S. sales of distressed 
    merchandise because the quantity involved was insignificant and Dole 
    made no comparable third country sales of distressed merchandise during 
    the POI (see Concurrence Memorandum, dated January 4, 1995).
    
    Foreign Market Value
    
        In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of CPF in 
    the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, we 
    compared each respondents' volume of home market sales of subject 
    merchandise to the volume of third country sales in accordance with 
    section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act (1994). As noted in the ``Case 
    History'' section above, we found that the home market was not viable 
    for any of the respondents. We selected Germany as the appropriate 
    third country market for all four respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.49(b) (1994).
        For each of the respondents, we made adjustments, where 
    appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise, in accordance 
    with 19 CFR 353.57 (1994). In addition, in accordance with section 
    773(a)(1) of the Act (1994), we deducted third country packing costs 
    and added U.S. packing costs for all respondents.
        For TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee, we adjusted for differences in 
    commissions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994) as follows: 
    Where commissions were paid on some third country sales used to 
    calculate FMV, we deducted from FMV both (1) indirect selling expenses 
    attributable to those sales on which commissions were not paid; and (2) 
    commissions. The total deduction was capped by the amount of the 
    commission paid on the U.S. sales in accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.56(b)(1) (1994). Where no commissions were paid on third country 
    sales used to calculate FMV, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) 
    (1994), we deducted the lesser of either 1) the amount of the 
    commission paid on the U.S. sale; or 2) the sum of the weighted average 
    indirect selling expenses paid on the third country sales. Finally, the 
    amount of the commission paid on the U.S. sale was added to FMV in 
    accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994).
    
    Malee
    
        For Malee, we calculated FMV based on FOB and C&F prices charged to 
    unrelated customers in Germany. In light of the decision of the Court 
    of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Ad Hoc Committee of AS-NM-
    TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 
    (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Department no longer deducts third country 
    movement charges from FMV pursuant to its inherent power to fill in 
    ``gaps'' in the antidumping statute. Instead, we adjust for those 
    expenses under the circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a) 
    (1994). Accordingly, in the present case, we deducted post-sale third 
    country market movement charges from FMV under the circumstance-of-sale 
    provision. This adjustment included foreign brokerage and handling, 
    foreign inland freight, and ocean freight. We also made deductions in 
    accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
    appropriate, for bank charges.
        We made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit 
    expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994) and 19 CFR 
    353.56(a)(2) (1994).
    
    SAICO
    
        We based FMV on FOB prices charged to unrelated customers in 
    Germany. We deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the 
    circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a)
    
    [[Page 2738]]
    
    (1994). The charges included foreign inland freight, foreign inland 
    insurance, and foreign brokerage and handling. We also made deductions 
    in accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
    appropriate, for bank charges.
        We made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit 
    expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994). For third-country 
    sales with missing payment dates, we used the date of the preliminary 
    determination of this investigation in order to calculate imputed 
    credit.
    
    TIPCO
    
        We based FMV on FOB prices charged to unrelated customers in 
    Germany. We deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the 
    circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a) (1994). The charges 
    included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, port 
    charges, and liner fees. We also made deductions in accordance with 
    section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where appropriate, for bank 
    charges.
        We made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit 
    expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994).
    
    Dole
    
        We calculated FMV based on packed, ex-warehouse, C&F port of 
    import, ex-quay and delivered prices to unrelated customers.
        Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994) and 19 CFR 
    353.56(a)(2)(1994), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 
    unrelated commissions as well as credit, bank, and merchandising 
    expenses. We deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the 
    circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a) (1994). The charges 
    included freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling, European 
    Community (EC) duty and EC brokerage and handling. For movement 
    expenses where it was not possible to determine from information on the 
    record how the expense directly applies to the sales under 
    investigation (i.e., movement expenses associated with sales made on an 
    ex-warehouse or delivered basis), we assumed all expenses to be 
    indirect selling expenses for purposes of the preliminary 
    determination. We deducted from FMV the weighted-average third country 
    indirect selling expenses including, where appropriate, pre-sale 
    movement expenses, warehousing and inventory carrying costs in 
    accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2)(1994). In accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.56(b) (1) and (2) (1994), because commissions were paid in both the 
    United States and third country markets, the deduction for third 
    country indirect selling expenses was capped by the sum of U.S. 
    indirect selling expenses. We recalculated Dole's reported credit 
    expense in instances where Dole had not reported a shipment and/or 
    payment date because the merchandise had not yet been shipped and/or 
    paid for at the time of the filing of this response. For those sales 
    missing both a shipment and payment date, we used the average credit 
    days of all transactions with a reported shipment and payment date. For 
    those sales missing a payment date only, we inserted the date of the 
    preliminary determination.
        As noted above, in accordance with sections 773(a)(1) and 771(16) 
    of the Act (1994), we excluded from our analysis certain reported sales 
    of subject merchandise which was not produced by Dole.
    
    Currency Conversion
    
        We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates 
    in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
    Reserve Bank of New York.
    
    Verification
    
        As provided in section 776(b) of the Act (1994), we will verify 
    information used in making our final determination.
    
    Suspension of Liquidation
    
        In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act (1994), we are 
    directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
    CPF from Thailand, as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' 
    section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
    for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
    the Federal Register (except those that represent sales by Dole). The 
    Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal 
    to the estimated preliminary dumping margins, as shown below. This 
    suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
        The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Manufacturers/producers/exporters             Margin percent       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dole......................................  0.30 (De minimus)           
    TIPCO.....................................  7.81                        
    SAICO.....................................  9.55                        
    Malee.....................................  1.12                        
    All Others................................  6.73                        
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ITC Notification
    
        In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act (1994), we have 
    notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is 
    affirmative, the ITC will determine whether imports of the subject 
    merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, 
    the U.S. industry before the later of 120 days after the date of the 
    preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination.
    
    Public Comment
    
        Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a 
    written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
    U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of the 
    publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's 
    name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
    and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.
        In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38 (1994), case briefs or other 
    written comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the 
    Assistant Secretary no later than May 1, 1995, and rebuttal briefs no 
    later than May 3, 1995. A hearing, if requested, will be held on May 8, 
    1995, at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 4830. Parties should 
    confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours 
    prior to the scheduled time. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) 
    (1994), oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the 
    briefs.
        This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
    Act (1994) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4) (1994).
    
        Date: January 4, 1995.
    Susan G. Esserman,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 95-687 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
1/11/1995
Published:
01/11/1995
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-687
Dates:
January 11, 1995.
Pages:
2734-2738 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-549-813
PDF File:
95-687.pdf