[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8059-8065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4012]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-301-602]
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia for
the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value by various companies subject to this review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess
antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price or
constructed export price and the normal value. We invite interested
parties to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa Jeong or Marian Wells, Office of
AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3853 or (202) 482-6309, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition,
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of
Commerce's (``the Department's'') regulations are to the regulations
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1998).
Background
On March 11, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' with
respect to the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from
Colombia (see 63 FR 11868). We published a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of this order on April 21, 1998, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b) (see 63 FR 19709). On September 17, 1998,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we rescinded the administrative
review with respect to ten groups of producers and exporters of the
subject merchandise based on withdrawals of the requests for review by
the interested parties (see 63 FR 49686). The cash deposit rates for
these companies will continue to be the rates established for them in
the most recently completed final results. On December 7, 1998, we
extended the deadline for these preliminary results until February 10,
1999, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (see 63 FR
67454). From December 8-18, 1998, we verified the responses of four
respondents: Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A. (``Falcon Farms''), Flores
de la Vega Ltda. (``Vegaflor''), Flores de Serrezuela S.A.
(``Serrezuela''), and Flores Silvestres S.A. (``Silvestres''). The
Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with
section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain fresh cut
flowers from Colombia (standard carnations, miniature (spray)
carnations, standard chrysanthemums, and pompon chrysanthemums). These
products are currently classifiable under item numbers 0603.10.30.00,
0603.10.70.10, 0603.10.70.20, and 0603.10.70.30 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS
item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is March 1, 1997 through February
28, 1998.
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides the Department with the
authority to determine margins by limiting its examination to a
statistically valid sample of exporters, or exporters accounting for
the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be
examined. This subparagraph is formulated as an exception to the
general requirement of the Act that each company for which a review is
requested will be individually examined and receive a calculated
margin. In this
[[Page 8060]]
administrative review, over 400 companies were either named in the
initiation notice or have been identified as being affiliated with a
company named in the initiation notice.
Because of the large number of companies involved in the review and
the limited resources available to the Department, we determined that
it was administratively necessary to restrict the number of respondents
selected for examination. This enabled the Department to conduct
thorough and accurate analyses of the responses to our questionnaires
and other relevant issues within the statutory deadlines. Restricting
the number of respondents for examination is consistent with the two
most recent administrative reviews of this order and other past cases
involving large numbers of potential respondents, statutory deadlines,
and limited resources. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From
Colombia: Preliminary Results and Partial Termination of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 5354 (February 2, 1998) (``Flowers
Tenth Review (Preliminary)''); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 16772 (April 8, 1997) (``Flowers Ninth
Review (Preliminary)''); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10, 1996); and Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pasta from Italy, 61 FR
1344 (January 19, 1996).
The Department limited its examination in the present review to
seven exporters and producers as permitted under section 777A(c)(2)(B)
of the Act. Of the exporters and producers subject to requests for
review, these seven accounted for the largest volume of exports to the
United States during the POR. The respondents in this review are: the
Caicedo Group (``Caicedo''), Falcon Farms, Flores Colon Ltda. (``Flores
Colon''), the Maxima Farms Group (``Maxima''), Serrezuela, Silvestres,
and Vegaflor.
Non-Selected Respondents
Consistent with our practice in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From
Colombia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63
FR 31724 (June 10, 1998) (Flowers Tenth Review), we have assigned the
non-selected respondents a weighted-average margin based on the
calculated margins of selected respondents, excluding any de minimis
margins and margins based on facts available. The firms in question are
listed under ``Non-Selected Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of
Review section below.
Verification
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(v), we verified information
provided by those respondents that had not been verified in the last
two administrative reviews and for whom the petitioner requested
verification (see Background section above for a list of verified
companies). We verified information using standard verification
procedures, including on-site examination of relevant sales and
financial records, and inspection of original documentation containing
relevant information.
Duty Absorption
On March 31, 1998, the petitioner requested that the Department
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by respondents
during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the
Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative review
initiated two or four years after publication of the order, whether
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter
subject to the order, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United
States through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer
or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Act by the URAA. 19 CFR
351.213(j) addresses duty absorption.
For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, 19 CFR 351.213(j)(2)
provides that the Department will make a duty absorption determination,
if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998.
The preamble to the proposed regulations explains that reviews
initiated in 1996 will be considered initiated in the second year and
reviews initiated in 1998 will be considered initiated in the fourth
year. See 61 FR 7308, 7317 (February 27, 1996). See also 62 FR at 27318
(May 19, 1997). This approach assures that interested parties will have
the opportunity to request a duty absorption determination on entries
for which the second and fourth years following an order have already
passed, prior to the time for sunset review of the order under section
751(c) of the Act. Because the order on certain fresh cut flowers from
Colombia has been in effect since 1986, this is a transition order.
Consequently, based on the policy stated above, it is appropriate for
the Department to examine duty absorption in this eleventh review,
which was initiated in 1998.
Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that duty absorption may
occur if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through
an affiliated importer. Of the selected respondents, the following have
affiliated importers: Caicedo, Falcon Farms, Maxima, and Vegaflor.
Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that there are dumping
margins for the following companies with respect to the percentages of
their U.S. sales by quantity indicated below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
of U.S.
affiliated
Name of company importer
sales with
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caicedo.................................................... 2.66
Falcon Farms............................................... 32.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales which
were dumped, unless there is evidence (e.g., an agreement between the
affiliated importer and the unaffiliated purchaser) that the
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States will pay the full duty
ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. In the present review,
none of the selected respondents has provided evidence of agreements
with unaffiliated purchasers to pay ultimately assessed antidumping
duties. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the antidumping duties
have been absorbed by the above-listed firms on the percentage of U.S.
sales indicated.
Fair Value Comparisons
United States Price
As permitted by section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we have
preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to average U.S. prices
on a monthly basis in order to (1) use actual price information (which
is often available only on a monthly basis), and (2) account for
perishable product pricing practices. The Department used this same
averaging technique in Flowers Tenth Review, and prior reviews of this
order.
For the price to the United States, we used export price (``EP'')
or constructed export price (``CEP'') as defined in sections 772(a) and
772(b) of the Act, as appropriate. CEP was used for consignment sales
through unaffiliated U.S. consignees and sales (consignment or
otherwise) made through affiliated importers.
We calculated EP based on the packed price, consisting of invoice
price plus certain additional charges (e.g., box charges, fuel
surcharges, and antidumping duty surcharge), to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United
[[Page 8061]]
States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and
rebates, foreign inland freight, international (air) freight, brokerage
and handling, U.S. customs fees, and return credits.
For sales made on consignment, CEP was calculated based on the
packed price consisting of invoice price plus certain additional
charges by the consignee (e.g., box charges, fuel surcharges, and
antidumping duty surcharge) to the unaffiliated purchaser. For sales
made through affiliated parties, CEP was based on the packed price,
consisting of invoice price plus certain additional charges (e.g., box
charges, fuel surcharges, and antidumping duty surcharge), to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made adjustments to
these prices, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates, foreign
inland freight, international (air) freight, freight charges incurred
in the United States, brokerage and handling, U.S. customs fees, direct
selling expenses relating to commercial activity in the United States
(i.e., credit expenses and contributions to the Colombian Flower
Council), return credits, royalties, and indirect selling expenses
incurred in the home market that related to commercial activity in the
United States. Finally, consistent with our practice in the Flowers
Tenth Review, we made adjustments for either commissions paid to
unrelated U.S. consignees or the direct and indirect U.S. selling
expenses of related consignees.
Pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, the price was
further reduced by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP for sales
made through affiliated parties. The CEP profit was calculated in
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act.
Normal Value
Section 773 of the Act provides that the normal value (``NV'') of
the subject merchandise shall be (1) the price at which the foreign
like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for
sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home market sales), in
the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade
and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the
export price or constructed export price, (2) the price at which the
foreign like product is sold (or offered for sale) for consumption in a
country other than the exporting country or the United States (third
country sales), or (3) the constructed value of that merchandise.
During the POR, none of the companies selected to respond in this
review had sales in the home market exceeding five percent of the sales
to the U.S. market, i.e., none had a viable home market. Section
773(a)(4) of the Act states that if the administering authority
determines that the NV of the subject merchandise cannot be determined
using home market prices, then, notwithstanding the possible use of
third country prices, the NV of the subject merchandise may be the
constructed value (``CV'') of that merchandise.
During this POR, certain companies selected to respond had viable
third country markets in Europe and Canada. In prior reviews, we have
rejected using prices to Europe because the particular market situation
prevents a proper comparison. See Flowers Tenth Review at 31725.
Information submitted by respondents shows that this market situation
has continued. Therefore, we are not basing NV on sales to European
markets.
With respect to Canada, only one selected respondent had a viable
third country market. Because this is not a significant export market
for Colombia, we have determined that, under the facts of this case,
prices to Canada are not representative within the meaning of section
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act. As discussed in the Respondent
Selection section above, we have limited our analysis to a subset of
the Colombian companies exporting the subject merchandise to the United
States and we are basing the antidumping duty assessments for the non-
selected companies on the margins calculated for the selected
companies. Given this, we want to make our analysis as representative
as possible of the companies that were not selected to respond to our
questionnaire.
It is clear that Canada is not an important export market for
Colombian flower growers. Evidence on the record indicates that Canada
represents less than three percent of flower exports from Colombia.
Thus, to use sales to Canada as the basis of our margin calculations
for the single exporter that has a viable market in Canada and then
include those results in calculating the rate used for assessing duties
on the non-selected respondents' imports would be inappropriate for the
vast majority of growers. Furthermore, all interested parties in this
review agree that sales to Canada should not be used as a basis for NV.
See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Import Administration ``Canadian Sales,'' dated February 10,
1999, on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of
Commerce. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act,
we are basing NV on CV.
We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We
included the cost of materials and fabrication, and the selling,
general and administrative expenses reported by respondents. Consistent
with the methodology used in the Flowers Tenth Review, we first
converted costs incurred in each month from pesos to dollars using the
corresponding month's exchange rate. See Flowers Tenth Review
(Preliminary) at 5357 (explaining the Department's methodology). We
totaled the monthly cost expressed in dollars over the POR and divided
by the quantity of export quality flowers sold by the producer to
arrive at the per-stem CV in U.S. dollars. The dollar per-stem CV was
then converted to pesos using the period-end exchange rate and then
deflated each month to account for fluctuations in the value of the
Colombian peso during the POR. Next, we converted the peso per-stem CV
based on the date of the U.S. sale, in accordance with section 773A(a)
of the Act.
We consider non-export quality flowers (culls) that are produced in
conjunction with export quality flowers to be by-products. Therefore,
revenue from the sales of culls was offset against the cost of
producing the export quality flowers.
We based selling, general and administrative expenses on the
amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product for consumption in the
home market. Where the respondents had no home market sales, we used as
general and administrative expenses the expenses associated with the
respondents' sales to all other markets. With respect to selling
expenses, all respondents reporting sales of export quality flowers in
the home market reported no selling expenses. Therefore, we included
zero as the actual amount of selling expenses incurred and realized by
the exporters and producers being examined in this review.
With respect to profit, we preliminarily determine that the
conditions that led to the use of facts available for the profit rate
in the Flowers Ninth Review and the Flowers Tenth Review continue to
exist in the current POR. We find that home market sales of culls and
export quality flowers were outside the ordinary course of trade.
Consequently, we are unable to apply the methods specified in section
773(e)(2)(A) or 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for calculating profit.
Also, none of the respondents realized a profit on
[[Page 8062]]
merchandise in the same general category as flowers produced for sale
in Colombia. Therefore, we are also not able to apply the profit
methodology described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) permits the Department to use ``any other
reasonable method'' to compute an amount for profit, provided that the
amount ``may not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or
producers * * * in connection with the sale, for consumption in the
foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of
products as the subject merchandise.'' Despite our efforts, we have not
been able to find any information on the profits earned in Colombia by
producers of merchandise that is in the same general category of
products as flowers. Therefore, we cannot determine a ``profit cap'' as
described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. Consistent with our
practice in Flowers Ninth Review and Flowers Tenth Review, we have
applied section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act on the basis of facts
available and have developed a profit figure from the financial
statements of a Colombian producer of agricultural and processed
agricultural goods. See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') at
841. We preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to use the
profit rate for that company, 2.87 percent of cost of production, for
all respondents. See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration ``Calculation of
Constructed Value Profit,'' dated February 10, 1999, on file in the
Central Records Unit of the Department of Commerce.
We added U.S. packing to CV. In addition, for EP sales, we made
circumstance of sale adjustments for direct expenses, where
appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, 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.
See Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March
8, 1996). Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a
daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S.
dollars, unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In
accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined as a
general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate
differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See Notice of Final
Determination of Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61971 (November 19, 1997). The
benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40
business days. When we determine that a fluctuation exists, we
substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of EP and CEP with NV, we
preliminarily determine that there are margins in the amounts listed
below for the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998.
Selected Respondents
The following seven firms and groups of firms (composed of 19
companies) were selected as respondents and received individual rates,
as indicated below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caicedo Group................................................ 1.06
Agrobosques S.A.
Andalucia S.A.
Aranjuez S.A
Exportaciones Bochica S.A.
Floral Ltda.
Flores del Cauca S.A.
Productos el Rosal S.A.
Productos el Zorro S.A.
Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A................................. 3.31
Flores Colon Ltda............................................ 1.87
Flores de la Vega (Vegaflor)................................. 0.07
Flores de Serrezuela S.A..................................... 1.82
Flores Silvestres S.A........................................ 2.36
Maxima Farms Group........................................... 0.34
Agricola Los Arboles S.A.
C.I. Maxima Floral Traders S.A.
Colombian D.C. Flowers
Maxima Farms Inc.
Polo Flowers S.A.
Rainbow Flowers S.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Selected Respondents
The following companies were not selected as respondents and will
receive a rate of 1.83 percent:
Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia
Achalay
Aga Group
Agricola la Celestina
Agricola la Maria
Agrex de Oriente
Agricola Acevedo
Agricola Altiplano
Agricola Arenales Ltda.
Agricola Benilda Ltda.
Agricola Bonanza Ltda.
Agricola Circasia Ltda.
Agricola de Occident
Agricola del Monte
Agricola el Cactus S.A.
Agricola el Redil
Agricola Guali S.A.
Agricola la Corsaria C.I. Ltda.
Agricola la Siberia
Agricola Las Cuadras Group
Agricola Las Cuadras Ltda.
Flores de Hacaritama
Agricola los Gaques Ltda.
Agricola Megaflor Ltda.
Agricola Yuldama
Agrocaribu Ltda.
Agro de Narino
Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group
Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.
Celia Flowers
Passion Flowers
Primo Flowers
Temptation Flowers
Agroindustrial Madonna S.A.
Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.
Agromonte Ltda.
Agropecuaria Cuernavaca Ltda.
Agropecuaria la Marcela
Agropecuaria Mauricio
Agrorosas
Agrotabio Kent
Aguacarga
Alcala
Alstroflores Ltda.
Amoret
Ancas Ltda.
Andes Group
Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.
Flores de los Andes Ltda.
Flores Horizonte Ltda.
Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda
A.Q.
Arboles Azules Ltda.
Aspen Gardens Ltda.
Astro Ltda.
Becerra Castellanos y Cia.
Bojaca Group
Agricola Bojaca
Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.
Flores y Plantas Tropicales
Tropiflora
Universal Flowers
Cantarrana Group
Agricola los Venados Ltda.
Cantarrana Ltda.
Carcol Ltda.
Cigarral Group
Flores Cigarral
Flores Tayrona
Classic
Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.
Clavelez
Coexflor
Colibri Flowers Ltda.
Color Explosion
Combiflor
Cota
Crest D'or
Crop S.A.
Cultiflores Ltda.
Cultivos Guameru
Cultivos Medellin Ltda.
Cultivos Tahami Ltda.
Cypress Valley
Daflor Ltda.
[[Page 8063]]
Degaflor
De La Pava Guevara e Hijos Ltda.
Del Monte
Del Rio Group
Agricola Cardenal S.A.
Flores del Rio S.A.
Indigo S.A.
Del Tropico Ltda.
Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.
Disagro
Diveragricola
Dynasty Roses Ltda.
El Antelio S.A.
El Dorado
Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen Tantau)
El Jardin Group
Agricola el Jardin Ltda.
La Marotte S.A.
Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.
El Milaro
El Tambo
El Timbul Ltda.
Envy Farms Group
Envy Farms
Flores Marandua Ltda.
Euroflora
Exoticas
Exotic Flowers
Exotico
Expoflora Ltda.
Exporosas
Exportadora
Farm Fresh Flowers Group
Agricola de la Fontana
Flores de Hunza
Flores Tibati
Inversiones Cubivan
Ferson Trading
Flamingo Flowers
Flor Colombiana S.A.
Flora Bellisima
Flora Intercontinental
Floralex Ltda..
Florandia Herrera Camacho y Cia.
Floreales Group
Floreales Ltda.
Kimbaya
Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.
Flores Abaco S.A.
Flores Acuarela S.A.
Flores Agromonte
Flores Aguila
Flores Ainsuca Ltda.
Flores Ainsus
Flores Alcala Ltda.
Flores Andinas
Flores Aurora
Flores Bachue Ltda.
Flores Calichana
Flores Carmel S.A.
Flores Cerezangos
Flores Comercial Bellavista Ltda.
Flores Corola
Flores de Aposentos Ltda.
Flores de Guasca
Flores de Iztari
Flores de Memecon/Corinto
Flores de la Cuesta
Flores de la Hacienda
Flores de la Maria
Flores de la Montana
Flores de la Parcelita
Flores de la Sabana Group
Flores de la Sabana S.A.
Roselandia S.A.
Flores de la Vereda
Flores del Campo Ltda.
Flores del Cielo Ltda.
Flores del Cortijo
Flores del Lago Ltda.
Flores del Tambo
Flores de Oriente
Flores de Suba
Flores de Suesca Group
Flores de Suesca S.A.
Toto Flowers
Flores de Tenjo Ltda.
Flores Depina Ltda.
Flores el Lobo
Flores el Molino S.A.
Flores el Puente Ltda.
Flores el Rosal Ltda
Flores el Talle Ltda.
Flores el Zorro Ltda
Flores Flamingo Ltda.
Flores Fusu
Flores Galia Ltda.
Flores Gicor Group
Flores Cicor Ltda.
Flores de Colombia
Flores Gloria
Flores Hacienda Bejucol
Flores Juanambu Ltda.
Flores Juncalito Ltda.
Flores la Cabanuela
Flores la Fragancia S.A.
Flores la Gioconda
Flores la Lucerna
Flores la Macarena
Flores la Pampa
Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group
Flores la Union/Santana
Flores las Caicas
Flores las Mesitas
Flores los Sauces
Flores Monserrate Ltda.
Flores Montecarlo
Flores Monteverde
Flores Palimana
Flores Ramo Ltda.
Flores S.A.
Flores Sagaro
Flores Saint Valentine
Flores Sairam Ltda.
Flores San Andres
Flores San Carlos
Flores San Juan S.A.
Flores Santa Fe Ltda.
Flores Santana
Flores Sausalito
Flores Selectas
Flores Sindamanoi
Flores Suasuque
Flores Tenerife Ltda.
Flores Tiba S.A.
Flores Tocarinda
Flores Tomine Ltda.
Flores Tropicales Group
Flores Tropicales Ltda.
Mercedes S.A.
Rosas Colombianas Ltda.
Flores Urimaco
Flores Violette
Florexpo
Floricola
Floricola la Gaitana S.A.
Floricola la Ramada Ltda.
Florimex Colombia Ltda.
Florisol
Florpacifico
Flor y Color
Floval
Flower Factory
Flowers of the World/Rosa
Four Seasons
Fracolsa
Fresh Flowers
F. Salazar
Garden and Flowers Ltda.
German Ocampo
Granja
Green Flowers
Gypso Flowers
Hacienda la Embarrada
Hacienda Matute
Hana/Hisa Group
Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.
Flores Tokai Hisa
Hernando Monroy
Hill Crest Gardens
Horticultura de la Sasan
Horticultura el Molino
Horticultura Montecarlo
Illusion Flowers
Industria Santa Clara
Industrial Agricola
Industrial Terwengel Ltda.
Ingro Ltda.
Inverpalmas
Inversiones Almer Ltda.
Inversiones Bucarelia
Inversiones Cota
Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.
Inversiones Flores del Alto
Inversiones Maya
Inversiones Morcote
Inversiones Morrosquillo
Inversiones Playa
Inversiones & Producciones Tecnica
Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.
Inversiones Santa Rosa ARW Ltda.
Inversiones Silma
Inversiones Sima
Inversiones Supala S.A.
Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.
Iturrama S.A.
Jardin de Carolina
Jardines Choconta
Jardines Darpu
Jardines de America
Jardines de Timana
Jardines Natalia Ltda.
Jardines Tocarema
J.M. Torres
Karla Flowers
[[Page 8064]]
Kingdom S.A.
La Colina
La Conchita Group
Agropecuaria La Monja
Cienfuegos
C.I. Flores Santillana Ltda.
Flores la Conchita
La Embairada
La Flores Ltda.
La Floresta
La Plazoleta Ltda.
Las Amalias Group
La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.
Las Amalias S.A.
Pompones Ltda.
Ramiflora Ltda.
Las Flores
Laura Flowers
L.H.
Linda Colombiana Ltda.
Loma Linda
Loreana Flowers
Los Geranios Ltda.
Luisa Flowers
M. Alejandra
Manjui Ltda.
Mauricio Uribe
Merastec
Monteverde Ltda.
Morcoto
Nasino
Natuflora/San Martin Bloque B Ltda.
Olga Rincon
Oro Verde Group
Inversiones Miraflores S.A.
Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.
Otono
Petalos de Colombia Ltda.
Pinar Guameru
Piracania
Pisochago Ltda.
Plantaciones Delta Ltda.
Plantas S.A.
Prismaflor
Propagar Plantas S.A.
Reme Salamanca
Rosa Bella
Rosaflor
Rosales de Colombia Ltda.
Rosales de Suba Ltda.
Rosas Sabanilla Group
Agricola la Capilla
Flores la Colmena Ltda.
Inversiones la Serena
Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.
Rosas y Jardines
Rose
Rosex Ltda.
San Ernesto
San Valentine
Sansa Flowers
Santana Flowers Group
Hacienda Curibital Ltda.
Inversiones Istra Ltda.
Santana Flowers Ltda.
Santa Rosa Group
Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.
Floricola la Ramada Ltda.
Sarena
Select Pro
Senda Brava Ltda.
Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.
Shila
Siempreviva
Soagro Group
Agricola el Mortino Ltda.
Flores Aguaclara Ltda.
Flores del Monte Ltda.
Flores la Estancia
Jaramillo y Daza
Solor Flores Ltda.
Starlight
Sunbelt Florals
Superflora Ltda.
Susca
Sweet Farms
Tag Ltda.
The Beall Company
The Rose
Tikiya Flowers
Tinzuque Group
Catu S.A.
Tinzuque Ltda
Tomino
Tropical Garden
Tuchany Group
Flores Munya
Flores Sibate
Flores Tikaya
Tuchany S.A.
Uniflor Ltda.
Velez de Monchaux Group
Agroteusa
Velez De Monchaux e Hijos y Cia S. en C.
Victoria Flowers
Villa Cultivos Ltda.
Villa Diana
Vuelven Ltda.
Zipa Flowers
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing
not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Interested
parties may also submit written arguments in case briefs on these
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may
be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case
briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each
argument: (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. All memoranda referred to in this notice can be found in the
public reading room, located in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of
the main Department of Commerce building. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.
The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including a discussion of its analysis of issues
raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department
will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department
shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated an importer-
specific per-stem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the
quantity of subject merchandise entered during the POR. We have used
the number of stems entered during the POR, rather than entered values,
because respondents reported average monthly prices and, moreover, the
entered values were not associated with particular importers. This rate
will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer
made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions on each exporter directly to the 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
companies will be those rates established in the final results of this
review, except that no cash deposit will be required if the rate is de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent; (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) for all
other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit
rate shall be 3.10 percent, the adjusted ``all others'' rate from the
LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
[[Page 8065]]
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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 10, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-4012 Filed 2-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
