[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19209-19210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9407]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-601]
Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 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 a request by the Floral Trade Council
(petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh
cut flowers from Mexico. The review covers four producers/exporters,
Rancho El Aguaje (Aguaje), Rancho Guacatay (Guacatay), Rancho El Toro
(Toro), and Visaflor S. de P.R. (Visaflor), and entries of the subject
merchandise into the United States during the period April 1, 1991,
through March 31, 1992. We have preliminarily determined that dumping
margins exist for three of these producers. The Department based these
margins on the best information available (BIA). The fourth company,
Visaflor, made no shipments during the period of review (POR).
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 8, 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register
(57 FR 11935) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on fresh cut flowers from Mexico
(52 FR 13491, April 23, 1987). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1),
the petitioner requested an administrative review for Aguaje, Guacatay,
Toro, and Visaflor. On May 22, 1993, the Department published a notice
of initiation of this review (51 FR 21769) covering the period April 1,
1991, through March 31, 1992. Visaflor stated that it did not ship
subject merchandise from Mexico to the United States during the POR.
The Department has now conducted this review in accordance with section
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Because the Department determined during the prior administrative
review that Guacatay had made sales in the home market below the cost
of production (COP), we initiated a COP investigation with respect to
Guacatay on October 10, 1992.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are certain fresh cut flowers,
defined as standard carnations, standard chrysanthemums, and pompon
chrysanthemums. During the POR, such merchandise was classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers
0603.10.7010 (pompon chrysanthemums), 0603.10.7020 (standard
chrysanthemums), and 0603.10.7030 (standard carnations). The HTSUS item
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the order.
This review covers sales of the subject merchandise manufactured by
Aguaje, Guacatay, Toro, and Visaflor, and entered into the United
States during the period April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992.
Best Information Available
The Department has determined that the data submitted by Aguaje,
Toro, and Guacatay are unusable for the following reasons. The original
questionnaire responses they submitted included unaudited, ``in-house''
financial statements. The respondents reported that they were not
legally obligated to file income tax returns on sales made during the
POR. In response to a supplemental questionnaire sent to all three
companies, the respondents indicated that they were, in fact, obligated
to file income tax returns covering the POR because of a change in
Mexican law.
In an additional supplemental questionnaire, the Department asked
the respondents to submit copies of these tax returns, and to reconcile
them to the unaudited ``in-house'' financial [[Page 19210]] statements
previously submitted to the Department. Toro and Guacatay submitted
copies of their income tax returns; however, they failed to reconcile
them with their unaudited financial statements. The remaining
respondent, Aguaje, claimed it could not substantiate or reconcile the
cost data contained in its unaudited financial statement because it had
not filed its income tax returns for the POR, as required by the
Mexican government. Although Aguaje claimed that it had not filed its
returns, it provided no evidence to demonstrate that it was exempt from
filing.
The Department relies on the accounting system used in the
preparation of the audited financial statements to ensure that a
company's submitted sales and cost data are credible. An ``in-house''
system which has not been audited, and is not used for tax purposes or
for any purpose other than internal deliberations of the company, does
not assure the Department that costs have been stated in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, or that all sales and
costs have been appropriately captured by the ``in-house'' system. (See
Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Korea, 58 FR 37186 (July 9, 1993).)
For prior review periods, respondents were not required under
Mexican law to maintain audited financial statements or file tax
returns. We accepted respondents' unaudited ``in-house'' statements in
prior reviews because they did not have, and therefore could not
submit, official corroboration of their internal records. (See Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 FR 29621, 59622-23 (June 28, 1991).)
However, Mexican law governing income tax reporting changed in 1991,
and the respondents were required to have filed tax returns covering
the POR. Because respondents made inconsistent statements regarding
their obligation to file taxes, and further, failed to reconcile their
financial statements to their tax records as requested by the
Department, we rejected respondents' data in their entirety.
For the reasons stated above, the Department determines that
Aguaje, Guacatay, and Toro are uncooperative respondents. As a result,
in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have determined that
the use of BIA is appropriate. Whenever, as here, a company refuses to
cooperate with the Department, or otherwise significantly impedes an
antidumping proceeding, we use as BIA the higher of (1) the highest of
the rates found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise
in the same country of origin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation or in prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest
rate found in this review for any firm for the same class or kind of
merchandise. (See Antifriction Bearings from France, et al.; Final
Results of Review, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993).) As BIA, we assigned
the rate of 39.95 percent, which is the second highest rate found for
any Mexican flower producer from both the prior reviews and the LTFV
investigation. We have selected this rate because the highest rate
found for any Mexican flower producer in prior reviews and the LTFV
investigation, 264.43 percent, is an aberrational rate not
representative of the market. This rate was due to a company's
extraordinarily high business expenses during the review period
resulting from investment activities which were uncharacteristic of the
other reviewed companies. Therefore, we found it inappropriate to use
this rate as BIA, both in the prior review and in this review. (See
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 FR 29621, 29623 (June 28,
1991).) We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins
exist for the period April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranch el Aguaje.............................................. 39.95
Rancho Guacatay.............................................. 39.95
Rancho el Toro............................................... 39.95
Visaflor..................................................... \1\0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments during the POR. Rate is from the last review in which
Visaflor had shipments.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of
publication of this notice. Any hearing will be held 44 days after the
date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the
publication date of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after
the date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a
notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will
include the result of its analysis of issues raised in any such case
briefs.
The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse for consumption, on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies shall be those rates established in the final results of this
review; (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
shall 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, the
cash deposit rate will be 18.28 percent, the all others rate
established in 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 serves as a preliminary 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22
of the Department's regulations.
Dated: April 7, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-9407 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
