[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 241 (Friday, December 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65522-65527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31590]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-403-801]
Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway, Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 26, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic
salmon from Norway. The review covers 24 exporters, and the period
April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994. Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we determine the dumping margins for two of the
reviewed exporters, Skaarfish A/S (Skaarfish) and Norwegian Salmon A/S
(Norwegian Salmon), have changed.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4106, or 482-3814, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Background
On September 26, 1995, the Department published the preliminary
results (60 FR 49579) of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway (April 12,
1991, 56 FR 14920). The Department has now completed this
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The merchandise covered by this review is fresh and chilled
Atlantic salmon (salmon). It encompasses the species of Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) marketed as specified herein; the subject merchandise
excludes all other species of salmon: Danube salmon; Chinook (also
called ``king'' or ``quinnat''); Coho (``silver''); Sockeye
(``redfish'' or ``blueback''); Humpback (``pink''); and Chum (``dog'').
Atlantic salmon is whole or nearly whole fish, typically (but not
necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and cleaned, with the head on. The
subject merchandise is typically packed in fresh water ice (chilled).
Excluded from the subject merchandise are fillets, steaks, and other
cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or
otherwise processed Atlantic salmon. Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon
is currently provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
subheading 0302.12.00.02.09. The HTS item number is provided for
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
Cost of Production and Foreign Market Value
We calculated the cost of production (COP) of salmon sold by each
exporter based on the sum of the following: (1) The simple average of
farmers' costs of cultivation (COC) (which included the cost of
materials, fabrication, wellboat services, general expenses of the
farmer, and any applicable fees); (2) processing expenses; and (3) each
exporter's general expenses. The total COP was calculated on a
Norwegian kroner per kilogram (NOK/kg) basis.
Based on the comments presented by both respondents and petitioner,
and after further consideration and review, we have revised certain
costs as detailed in the comments below.
We calculated foreign market value (FMV) based on c.i.f., duty paid
prices to unrelated third country purchasers. We deducted, where
appropriate, third country inland freight, air freight, inland/marine
insurance, Norwegian export taxes, brokerage and handling, inland
freight in Norway, and third country import duties. We made
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in
credit, commissions, and warranty expenses.
[[Page 65523]]
United States Price
We calculated the United States Price (USP) based on the price from
the Norwegian exporter to unaffiliated parties where these sales were
made prior to importation into the United States, in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act.
We calculated the USP based on packed, ex-factory prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling,
Norwegian export taxes, U.S. duties, and air freight in accordance with
section 772(d)(2) of the Act. No other adjustments were claimed or
allowed.
Analysis of Comments Received
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. We received timely comments from two of the respondents,
Skaarfish Group and Norwegian Salmon, and the petitioner, the Coalition
for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade (FAST).
General Comments
Comment 1: Respondents contend that in establishing each
respondent's cost of production the Department should use the
acquisition prices from the unrelated fish farms rather than the
farmer's cost of cultivation. By using the farmer's cost of
cultivation, the respondents contend that the Department is departing
from its practice of relying on acquisition prices in establishing COP
when the supplier is not related to the respondent. Respondents claim
that the Department erred in determining that fish farmers are the
producers of the subject merchandise. According to respondents, the
fish farmers produce live salmon, which respondents consider to be an
input of the subject merchandise and outside the scope of the dumping
order. Respondents claim that the live salmon input is transformed into
merchandise covered by the scope of the order only through processing
by the respondents. Respondents cite Consolidated International
Automotive, Inc. v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 125, 128 n. 4 (CIT
1992) to demonstrate that, unless the sale of the input is by a related
party, the courts uphold the use of acquisition prices in determining
COP for a respondent.
Petitioner argues that the Department properly used the farms'
costs of cultivation to establish the subject merchandise's cost of
production. Petitioner points out that the Department rejected these
same arguments in past administrative reviews and should continue to
reject the argument that salmon is an input into the subject
merchandise as there are no new facts or legal authority to justify a
change in approach.
Department's Position: We consider the live salmon, produced by the
fish farmers and sold to exporters such as Skaarfish and Norwegian
Salmon, to be the same merchandise as is covered by the antidumping
duty order, but at an earlier stage of production. Accordingly, live
salmon is not an input but rather identical merchandise before it has
been made ready for sale and shipment. Consequently, respondents'
reliance on the Consolidated International Automotive decision is
misplaced.
As was found in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and
first administrative review, Skaarfish continues to process a portion
of its fish farm-sourced live salmon by gutting, cleaning, and
packaging it. Norwegian Salmon, and in some cases Skaarfish, purchase
and resell salmon that is already gutted and cleaned by the fish
farmers. There is no transformation of merchandise outside the scope of
the order to merchandise within the scope of the order as suggested by
respondents. Instead, respondents are acting primarily as a reseller by
merely preparing the merchandise for trans-Atlantic shipment. To
determine the cost of producing salmon, Commerce properly reviewed
respondents' costs as well as the fish farms' cost of cultivation.
Comment 2: The respondents argue that if the Department continues
to use its cost of production methodology, the Department should
develop an alternate methodology for selecting salmon farms. They
contend that the current methodology is designed to determine the
hypothetical costs of growing live salmon in Norway rather than to
determine the salmon costs of a specific respondent. Furthermore, they
allege that the methodology gives no consideration to the burdens
placed on the respondents resulting from the investigation of unrelated
live salmon suppliers. They further allege that inconsistent selection
practices occurred when the Department chose not to sample the farms of
one respondent, but chose to sample the farms of the other respondent.
Respondents argue that the Department should adopt a standard selection
methodology that does not place a financial burden on the respondents.
Petitioner argues that the Department's sampling methodology is
correct. Petitioner points out that the Department's methodology
ensured that farms were proportionately represented based on the
quantity of salmon supplied to each respondent. Petitioner argues that
the statute supports the Department's decision to sample one respondent
and not another.
Department's Position: We disagree with respondents. Respondents
are incorrect to contend that the current methodology is designed to
determine the hypothetical costs of growing live salmon in Norway
rather than to determine the salmon costs of a specific respondent. By
choosing to sample only those farms that supplied each exporter, the
Department is ensuring that the calculated costs of growing live salmon
are representative of that specific exporter.
The Department is aware that all administrative reviews place a
degree of burden on respondent firms. The Department intends to keep
those burdens manageable for both the respondents and itself. Under
section 777A of the Act, the Department has the discretion to sample
respondents. In deciding whether to sample, the Department determined
that it was both administratively necessary and methodologically
appropriate to sample among the 50 salmon farmers that supplied
Skaarfish A/S, but unnecessary to sample the nine salmon farmers that
supplied Norwegian Salmon.
Comment 3: Respondents argue that the Department's use of best
information available (BIA) should be revised to realistically reflect
the unique circumstances present in the review. Respondents contend
that they have no leverage over unrelated suppliers who have no
interest in the antidumping administrative review. Thus, the unrelated
suppliers have no incentive to supply confidential cost data.
Respondents propose that non-responding farms should be disregarded
from the sample. Alternatively, they argue that as BIA, the Department
should use the average COC of the responding farms rather than the COC
of the highest farm. Respondents point to Allied-Signal Aerospace Co.
v. United States, 28 F.3d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1994) to demonstrate that the
Department has the authority to adopt different approaches when
applying BIA.
Petitioner contends that the Department correctly applied BIA to
the unique circumstances of this review. Petitioner contends that the
salmon farmers do have a significant interest at stake in participating
in antidumping reviews. The salmon farmers are aware of the effect that
failing to respond has on the exporter's ability to sell their salmon
to the United States.
Department's Position: For Norwegian Salmon, we applied BIA to six
of the
[[Page 65524]]
nine farms, because those six did not submit questionnaire responses.
For Skaarfish, we applied BIA to four of the 13 farm selections,
because those four did not submit questionnaire responses. We chose as
BIA the highest calculated COC of the responding farms and applied that
COC to each of the nonresponding farms.
Under section 776(c) of the Act, the Department has the authority
to use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable
to produce information requested.'' Thus, the Department may resort to
BIA not only when a party ``refuses,'' but also when a party is
``unable'' to provide the requested information, for whatever reason.
The Allied Signal decision to which respondents refer affirmed the
Department's application of BIA to a non-recalcitrant party which was
unable to provide requested data.
The elimination of non-responding farms from the sample, as
respondents advocate, would reward non-responding farms and could
encourage non-compliance in future reviews. Moreover, it would impair
the integrity of the sample because it would detract from the
randomness of the results. Therefore, we continue to apply the same BIA
rules applied in the preliminary results.
Comment 4: Respondents argue that the Department should apply the
50-90-10 rule used with highly perishable products rather than the 10-
90-10 rule in determining when to disregard below-cost sales from the
calculation of FMV. Respondents contend that salmon is a highly
perishable product and that the salmon industry cannot respond quickly
to changing market conditions and must sell the salmon when the salmon
reach maturity. Respondents cite Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables from
Mexico, 45 FR 20512 (March 28, 1980) (Vegetables); Fall Harvested Round
White Potatoes from Canada, 48 FR 51669 (November 10, 1983) and Fresh
Cut Flowers from Mexico, 55 FR 12696 (April 5, 1990) to support their
position.
Petitioner contends that the Department correctly applied the 10/
90/10 test because the subject merchandise is not a highly perishable
product as defined by the Department in Vegetables. Petitioner points
out that, unlike Vegetables, the respondents in this case can control
the time of sale of the subject merchandise. In addition, the subject
merchandise is alive and not deteriorating at the time of the sales
transaction.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. As we have
explained in prior reviews of this order, under the 10/90/10 test, we
do not disregard sales if less than 10 percent are below cost and made
over an extended period of time; we disregard sales only if between 10
and 90 percent are below cost, and we disregard all sales if more than
90 percent are below cost. In past cases, the Department has used the
50/90/10 test in cases involving highly perishable agricultural
products. Under a 50/90/10 test, the Department would not disregard any
below-cost sales unless more than 50 percent of sales were below cost.
We believe that fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon is not a highly
perishable product. As we found in the original LTFV investigation and
first administrative review, farmers have the ability to control the
time of sale of their output without materially affecting the quality
of the merchandise. It is not unusual for farmers to delay sales for an
extended period of time until they receive a favorable price offer.
Moreover, exporters have the ability to coordinate future salmon
purchases with farmers to coincide with demand and processing
capabilities. Accordingly, application of the 50-90-10 rule is not
relevant in this case.
Comment 5: Norwegian Salmon and petitioner maintain that the
Department should correct a computer error in the margin calculations
for Norwegian Salmon where an expense, of a proprietary nature, was
incorrectly deducted twice from foreign market value.
Department's Position: We agree and have corrected this clerical
error by eliminating the double deduction.
Comment 6: Respondent argues that the Department used the incorrect
tax methodology to adjust for Norwegian export tax in the preliminary
results for Norwegian Salmon.
Petitioner claims that the Department simply did not subtract
Norwegian Salmon's export tax from its reported U.S. sales prices.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner and corrected this
error. Section 772 of the Act and section 353.41 of the Department's
regulations state that the export tax should be subtracted from U.S.
price. See 19 U.S.C. 1677a(d)(2)(B) and 19 C.F.R. 353.41(d)(2)(ii).
Comment 7: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly
stated in its September 26, 1995, Analysis Memorandum that there were
no third country sales below cost and, therefore, there were no
disregarded sales. However, according to the computer program, sales
were disregarded because Norwegian Salmon made third country sales
below the cost of production.
Norwegian Salmon contends that the Department incorrectly compared
Norwegian Salmon's third country sales to the cost of production on a
month-by-month basis rather than on a POR-model basis. Respondent
claims that the Department's computer program treats each month as a
model rather than comparing the one model of salmon to the COP for the
entire POR.
Department's position: We agree with both petitioner and
respondent. The Department incorrectly stated in the Analysis
Memorandum that there were no sales below the cost of production and,
therefore, there were no disregarded sales. Rather, the cost test
results indicated that third country sales made below cost should be
disregarded in its calculations for the preliminary results. For the
final results, however, we discovered that the calculation of above-
and below-cost data, used in the preliminary results, was inaccurate
due to an error in the computer program. This error has been corrected
for these final results.
Also, the Department did incorrectly treat each month of the POR as
a model, as asserted by respondent. The Department has corrected this
error. Sales of salmon are now compared to the cost of production on a
POR basis.
Norwegian Salmon Farm Specific Issues
Farm B
Comment 8: Petitioner contends that the Department's calculations
understated the feed costs for Farm B because they failed to
incorporate revised information contained in the verification report.
Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly stated and
allocated feed costs for Farm B. Respondent contends that the lower
feed costs used by the Department in its preliminary results are
correct because we also revised the total harvest weight of the 1992
generation salmon downward.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. In its preliminary
results, the Department failed to use the revised, higher total feed
costs that were based on information gathered at verification. This
error has been corrected. The respondent is incorrect that the revised
harvest quantities affect the total feed costs Farm B incurred. See
Farm B, Verification of Cost of Production, December 12, 1994.
Comment 9: Petitioner contends that there were no costs reported
for the 1992 generation salmon sold in calendar year 1994. As a result,
the net production quantity for Farm B was overstated due to the fact
that there
[[Page 65525]]
were 1992 generation salmon sales in 1994, but no associated 1994 costs
reported for the 1992 generation salmon. Petitioner advocates using
only the total quantity of 1992 generation salmon that was produced in
1992 and 1993 in the COC calculation.
Norwegian Salmon contends that the salmon sold in 1994 were
produced in 1992 and 1993. According to Norwegian Salmon, the COC
figures already include costs for the salmon that were sold in 1994,
and therefore no adjustment is needed.
Department's Position: We agree in part with both petitioner and
respondent. Petitioner is correct that there are no costs reported for
those 1992 generation salmon sold in 1994. However, as respondent
pointed out, the costs associated with the 1992 generation were
reported for 1992 and 1993. The net production quantities do not need
to be modified since the quantities produced in 1992 and 1993 and their
respective costs are not in question. Therefore to make the production
costs and production quantities correspond to the same period of time,
we corrected the total harvest quantity by eliminating the 1992
generation salmon harvested in 1994.
Comment 10: Petitioner contends that an extraordinary expense item
found in Farm B's 1993 general ledger should be included in Farm B's
1993 cost calculations just as a similar 1992 extraordinary expense
item found in its 1992 general ledger was included in Farm B's 1992
cost calculations.
Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly excluded the
extraordinary expense item in the calculation of Farm B's COC.
Respondent argues that Farm B, participating in its first
administrative review, incurred an extraordinary expense when it could
not collect on accounts receivable as a result of the Norske
Fiskeoppdretternes Salgslag (FOS) bankruptcy in 1991. Thus, respondent
claims that this extraordinary expense, although appearing in 1993's
general ledger, does not affect the COC of the 1992 generation salmon
under review.
Department's Position: We agree in part with both the petitioner
and respondent. The petitioner is correct that since the extraordinary
expense appears in Farm B's general ledger as an expense, it should
increase Farm B's COC. While respondent classifies this expense as an
``extraordinary''expense, it clearly does not meet the generally
accepted definition of an extraordinary expense. According to generally
accepted accounting practices, write-down and write-off of receivables
and inventory are not extraordinary because they relate to normal
business operational activities. Following the practice set in Fresh
and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, (58 FR 37912), comment 18, these expenses are
not considered extraordinary and are included as a component of the
cost of cultivation. This expense, however, is clearly not related to
the 1992 generation salmon under review since the FOS bankruptcy
occurred before the 1992 generation salmon were put in the water. If
Farm B was involved in a previous review where this bad debt expense
was associated with the generation of salmon under review, the expense
would be included in the COC of that POR. Therefore, we excluded this
expense from the COC for the products currently under review.
Comment 11: Petitioner contends that several overhead cost items
reported by Farm B should be added to, and not excluded from, costs
associated with the 1992 generation under review.
Norwegian Salmon contends that the Department correctly allowed
certain overhead cost items to be deducted from Farm B's cost of
cultivation.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondent. Although the
Department did not verify these specific journal entries, we verified
the accuracy and integrity of Farm B's audited financial statements, of
which these specific entries are a part. Thus, in accepting the whole,
we accept the individual entries as presented by the respondent, unless
otherwise noted.
Farm C
Comment 12: Petitioner contends that the indemnity reported by Farm
C was not correctly reflected in the COC calculations. Petitioner
claims that the indemnity should be allocated to both 1991 and 1992
generation salmon rather than to just 1992 generation salmon.
Furthermore, if the indemnity is accepted by the Department, the
associated loss must also be accounted for in the cost calculations.
Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly deducted and
allocated Farm C's indemnity. Respondent states that the indemnity was
not allocated to the 1991 generation because 1991 generation salmon
were at another location and were not affected by the underwater
detonations which caused the salmon loss. Respondent states that all
costs associated with the loss of salmon were fully accounted for in
Farm C's COC.
Department's Position: We note that Farm C received an indemnity to
compensate it for damage caused to its salmon farm by underwater
detonations. We agree that the indemnity was correctly allocated only
to the 1992 generation as the 1991 generation was kept at a different
location and not affected by these underwater detonations. However, we
failed to include Farm C's salmon loss, as it appears in its 1993
financial statements, in its COC calculations. We have corrected this
oversight by offsetting the indemnity received by the loss claimed in
Farm C's 1993 income statement.
Comment 13: Petitioner contends that according to the October 28,
1994, supplemental questionnaire response and Farm C's verification
report, the Department used incorrect feed costs and marketing expenses
for Farm C.
Department's position: The Department agrees and has used the
revised feed costs and marketing expenses found in the October 28,
1994, supplemental questionnaire response and Farm C's verification
report in the cost of cultivation calculation.
Skaarfish Farm Specific Issues
Farm A
Comment 14: Petitioner contends that the smolt costs that we used
in our calculations for Farm A were understated because the credit
costs incurred by the related smolt supplier of Farm A were not
included in the analysis.
Skaarfish maintains that Farm A did not understate the costs of
financing the smolt purchases from its related supplier. Respondent
argues that under the terms of delivery, if Farm A was granted a longer
period of time for payment, the financing cost associated with that
longer period was reflected in the higher unit price for the smolt.
Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The Department
verified the unit price of smolt purchased from Farm A's supplier. In
an arm's length transaction, those prices reflect the total costs
incurred by Farm A. We, therefore, used the respondent's reported smolt
prices in the calculation of Farm A's cost of cultivation.
Comment 15: Petitioner contends that the Department should use the
smolt costs contained in the Farm A verification report rather than the
smolt costs found in Farm A's general ledger.
Respondent argues that the two smolt amounts differ because the one
in the verification report includes the 20 percent value-added tax
while the amount found in the general ledger does not.
Department's Position: We agree with respondent. As noted in the
verification
[[Page 65526]]
report, the correct smolt expense is found in the general ledger, net
of the value-added tax.
Farm E
Comment 16: Petitioner contends that the Department should use the
smolt costs discovered at verification for Farm E.
Respondent maintains that Farm E correctly accounted for its smolt
costs. Respondent maintains that the amount petitioner is arguing in
favor of includes the value-added tax which does not belong in the
Department's cost calculations.
Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The correct smolt
expense is found in the general ledger, net of the value-added tax.
Farm G
Comment 17: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly did
not include any processing costs for Farm G.
Department's Position: We agree and have included the appropriate
processing costs for Farm G. We also discovered that an incorrect
processing cost was used for the farms that did not submit processing
costs. We replaced the processing cost used in the preliminary results
with the adjusted processing cost provided by Skaarfish in its August
11, 1994 submission.
Comment 18: Petitioner contends that the Department should not
allow the use of warranty expense data submitted by Skaarfish during
verification because it is new and unsolicited information.
Furthermore, petitioner claims that the use of this information
constitutes a double counting of warranty expenses. To demonstrate the
double counting, petitioner points to the August 25, 1994,
questionnaire response where Skaarfish stated: ``To the best of our
knowledge and belief there were no warranty expenses for sales to
France during the POR. In any event, a warranty will normally result in
a credit-note/price-reduction to the customer and is therefore covered
by the reported unit prices.''
Skaarfish argues that the Department has a long-standing policy to
accept corrections of previously submitted information at verification.
The error in reporting warranty expense information was a result of a
misunderstanding between company officials in France regarding what
constituted a warranty expense. Respondent claims that the error did
not amount to a comprehensive error or misstatement of fact, nor was
the information hidden or misrepresented during verification (citing
Disposable Pocket Lighters From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR
22359, 22365 (May 5, 1995).) Furthermore, respondent argues that there
is no evidence on the record to suggest a similar warranty expense on
U.S. sales.
Department's Position: We agree with respondent. At verification
Skaarfish discovered that there was a misunderstanding concerning
warranty expenses in the compilation of its questionnaire response. To
correct the mistake, Skaarfish submitted third country warranty expense
data at verification. It is the Department's practice to accept
corrections of previously submitted information at verification as long
as those errors are not comprehensive or exhibit a systematic
misstatement of fact. (See Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, From
the People's Republic of China, 58 F.R. 7537 (February 8, 1993).)
Furthermore, the Department verified the accuracy of the French
warranty data.
Comment 19: Petitioner contends that the Department should correct
the methodology Skaarfish used to allocate depreciation costs.
Petitioner argues that Skaarfish allocated depreciation expenses to
common areas and to non-production activities such as parking lots.
Petitioner proposes that the Department re-allocate depreciation costs
based on the relative space occupied by Skaarfish's production lines.
Department's Position: We agree, in part with petitioner.
Respondents incorrectly allocated depreciation expenses. However,
basing the allocation of all depreciation expenses on a square-meter
basis, as proposed by petitioner, neglects the level of financial
investment required for the various production activities. Therefore,
for these final results we allocated costs associated with the
depreciation of machinery and equipment on the basis of the
relationship of costs of processing salmon to all other products. The
costs associated with the depreciation of buildings were allocated on
the basis of square meters. This methodology more accurately reflects
the amount of depreciation expense to be allocated to subject
merchandise and is the methodology used in the first administrative
review. (See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 58 FR 37912).
Final Results of Review
As a result of comments received and programming errors corrected,
we have revised our preliminary results and determine that the
following margins exist for the period April 1, 1993, through March 31,
1994:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABA A/S...................................................... *31.81
Artic Group.................................................. **31.81
Artic Products Norway A/S.................................... *31.81
Brodrene Sirevag A/S......................................... *23.80
Cocoon Ltd A/S............................................... *31.81
Delfa Norge A/S.............................................. *31.81
Delimar A/S.................................................. ***
Deli-Nor A/S................................................. ***
Fjord Trading LTD. A/S....................................... *23.80
Fresh Marine Co. Ltd......................................... **31.81
Greig Norwegian Salmon....................................... **31.81
Harald Mowinckel A/S......................................... *23.80
Imperator de Norvegia........................................ *31.81
More Seafood A/S............................................. *31.81
Nils Willksen A/S............................................ *31.81
North Cape Fish A/S.......................................... *31.81
Norwegian Salmon A/S......................................... 18.65
Norwegian Taste Company A/S.................................. **31.81
Olsen & Kvalheim A/S......................................... *23.80
Sekkingstad A/S.............................................. *23.80
Skaarfish-Mowi A/S........................................... 2.28
Timar Seafood A/S............................................ *31.81
Victoria Seafood A/S......................................... **31.81
West Fish Ltd. A/S........................................... *23.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments during the period; margin from the last administrative
review.
** No response; highest margin from the original LTFV investigation.
*** No shipments or sales subject to this review; the firm had no
individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions concerning all respondents
directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed firms
will be the rates indicated above; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review conducted by the Department or the LTFV
investigation, the cash deposit
[[Page 65527]]
rate will be 23.80 percent, the all others rate from the LFTV
investigation.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: December 4, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-31590 Filed 12-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
