94-4503. Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page ]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-4503]
    
    
    [Federal Register: February 28, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    [A-570-831]
    
    
    Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Fresh Garlic From 
    the People's Republic of China
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1994.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Stagner or Diane Mazur, 
    Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
    Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone 
    (202) 482-1673 or 482-3534, respectively.
    
    Initiation of Investigation
    
    The Petition
    
        On January 31, 1994, we received a petition filed in proper form by 
    the member companies of the Fresh Garlic Producers Association 
    (collectively petitioner). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.12, the 
    petitioner alleges that fresh garlic from the People's Republic of 
    China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at 
    less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Tariff 
    Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and that these imports materially 
    injure, or threaten material injury to, a United States industry.
        The petitioner has stated that it has standing to file the petition 
    because it is an interested party, as defined under section 771(9)(C) 
    of the Act, and because the petition is filed on behalf of the U.S. 
    industry producing the product subject to this investigation. If any 
    interested party, as described under paragraphs (C), (D), (E), or (F) 
    of section 771(9) of the Act, wishes to register support for, or 
    opposition to, this petition, it should file a written notification 
    with the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    
    Scope of Investigation
    
        The products covered by this investigation are all grades of fresh 
    garlic, whether or not chilled or frozen, and include whole garlic, 
    whole garlic that has been separated into constituent cloves (cracked 
    garlic), and peeled garlic (skin removed), whether or not packed in any 
    substance. The differences between the grades are based on color, size, 
    sheathing and level of decay.
        Fresh garlic is used principally as a food product and for 
    seasoning. Fresh garlic, whether or not chilled or frozen, is currently 
    classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0000, 0710.80.7060, and 
    0710.80.9750 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
    (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
    and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
    proceeding is dispositive.
    
    United States Price and Foreign Market Value
    
        Petitioner based United States price (USP) on October 1993 invoices 
    from U.S. importers of the subject merchandise from the PRC. In 
    calculating USP, petitioner deducted amounts for the following: U.S. 
    duties, ocean freight, marine insurance, foreign inland freight 
    expenses, brokers' commission, harbor maintenance and U.S. merchandise 
    processing fees, and commissions charged by the U.S. importers.
        Petitioner alleges that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) 
    country within the meaning of section 773(c) of the Act. The Department 
    has determined the PRC to be an NME, within the meaning of section 
    771(18)(A) of the Act, in previous cases (see e.g., Final Determination 
    of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Compact Ductile Iron 
    Waterworks Fittings and Accessories Thereof from the PRC, 58 FR 37908 
    (July 14, 1993). In accordance with 771(18)(C) of the Act, that 
    determination continues to apply for purposes of this initiation. In 
    the course of this investigation, parties will have the opportunity to 
    address this NME determination and provide relevant information and 
    argument on this issue.
        Further, because of the extent of central government control in an 
    NME, the Department considers that a single antidumping margin, should 
    there be one, is appropriate for all exporters from the NME. Only if 
    individual NME exporters are free of central government ownership and 
    can demonstrate an absence of central governmental control with respect 
    to the pricing of exports, both in law and in fact, will they be 
    considered eligible for separate, owner-specific deposit rates. (See 
    Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Helical Spring 
    Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China, 58 FR 48833 
    (September 20, 1993) for a discussion of the information the Department 
    considers appropriate to warrant calculation of separate rates.)
        Petitioner based foreign market value on the PRC's factors of 
    production for producing the subject merchandise. To value the factors 
    of production, petitioner used India as a surrogate country. Petitioner 
    argues that India is a country at a comparable level of economic 
    development as the PRC and India is a significant producer of 
    comparable merchandise pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. 
    Further, India's garlic production is labor intensive and relies on 
    rudimentary agricultural techniques similar to agricultural methods 
    used in the PRC. For purposes of this initiation, we have accepted 
    India as an appropriate surrogate country selection. There appear to be 
    no other countries with comparable economies to the PRC that produce 
    the subject merchandise. In addition, the Department has used India as 
    an appropriate surrogate country selection in other investigations 
    involving merchandise from the PRC. (See Final Determination of Sales 
    at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of 
    China (57 FR 29705, July 6, 1992).
        Petitioner first attempted to value the factors of production using 
    Indian information. Where this was not possible, petitioner valued the 
    factors of production using the U.S. industry's costs, where it was 
    determined that this provided a reasonable basis upon which to value 
    certain factors of production. Petitioner valued the factors of 
    production of the subject merchandise in the PRC as follows:
         For material costs (seed and fertilizer), petitioner 
    relied on Indian factors based on its foreign market research, using 
    public information whenever possible.
         For most labor costs (seed cracking, field preparation, 
    planting, weed control, fertilization, irrigation, digging, windrowing 
    and harvesting), petitioner relied on an industry expert's estimate of 
    Chinese factors which was based on the expert's knowledge of the 
    Chinese industry and the expert's own experience with nonmechanized 
    garlic production, using public information whenever possible. 
    Petitioner valued such labor costs on the basis of Indian production 
    experience as developed in its foreign market research. For other labor 
    costs related to hauling, sorting, grading, inspecting, and shrinkage, 
    petitioner relied on the U.S. industry's cost-per-pound for these 
    operations.
         Petitioner added an amount for all other manufacturing 
    costs and related overhead equal to 10 percent of direct material and 
    labor costs.
         Petitioner added an amount for shrinkage loss of 7 percent 
    of the cost of production, based on U.S. experience.
         For selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), 
    petitioner used the statutory minimum of ten percent of the cost of 
    production.
         For profit, petitioner used the statutory minimum of eight 
    percent of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A.
         Petitioner added an amount for packing based on the 
    average, actual experience of the U.S. industry.
        Based on petitioner's calculations, the dumping margins range from 
    266.73 to 376.67 percent. For purposes of this initiation, no 
    adjustments were made to petitioner's calculations.
    
    Initiation of Investigation
    
        We have examined the petition on fresh garlic and have found that 
    the petition meets the requirements of section 732(b) of the Act. 
    Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to 
    determine whether imports of fresh garlic from the PRC are being, or 
    are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value.
    
    International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
    
        Section 732(d) of the Act requires us to notify the ITC of this 
    action and we have done so.
    
    Preliminary Determination by the ITC
    
        The ITC will determine by March 17, 1994, whether there is a 
    reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
    materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of 
    imports of fresh garlic from the PRC. A negative ITC determination will 
    result in a termination of the investigation; otherwise, the 
    investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
    limits.
        This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act 
    and 19 CFR 353.13(b).
    
        Dated: February 22, 1994.
    Joseph A. Spetrini,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 94-4503 Filed 2-25-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
02/28/1994
Department:
Commerce Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Document Number:
94-4503
Dates:
February 28, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (None pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: February 28, 1994, A-570-831