01-20269. Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: 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 March 8, 2001, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (66 FR 13896). The review covers five manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is August 5, 1998, through January 31, 2000.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

EFFECTIVE DATE:

August 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger, Katherine Johnson, or Dinah McDougall, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration—Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: [phone], or [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

The review covers five manufacturers/exporters: Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”), Himalya International Ltd. (“Himalya”), Hindustan Lever Ltd. (formerly Ponds India Ltd.) (“Hindustan”), Techtran Agro Industries Limited (“Techtran”), and Weikfield Agro Products Ltd. (“Weikfield”). The period of review is August 5, 1998, through January 31, 2000.

On March 8, 2001, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (66 FR 13896). We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of review. On April 9, 2001, we received requests for a public hearing from respondents Agro Dutch, Hindustan, Himalya, and Weikfield. We received case briefs from the petitioners ^[1] and the respondents, as well as from the importer, Giorgio Foods, Inc., on May 14, 2001. We received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, the respondents, and Giorgio Foods, Inc. on May 21, 2001. We held a public hearing at the Department on June 13, 2001. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under the order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of the order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to the order is classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 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 the order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 6, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/​. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes from the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memo.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist:

Manufacturer/exporter	Margin (percent)
Agro Dutch Foods Ltd	2.26
Himalya International Ltd	6.63
Hindustan Lever Ltd	4.29
Techtran Agro Industries Limited	66.24
Weikfield Agro Products Ltd	26.44

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of subject merchandise for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of the administrative review for all shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Agro Dutch, Himalya, Hindustan, Techtran, and Weikfield will be the rates shown 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 less-than-fair-value (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) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.30 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 doubled antidumping duties.

This notice serves as the only 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 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: August 6, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix—List of Issues

General Comment:

Comment 1: General and Administrative and Interest Expenses Used in Constructed Value

Company-Specific Comments:

Agro Dutch

Comment 2: Date of Sale for Certain U.S. Sales

Comment 3: Facts Available for Movement Expenses on Certain Sales

Comment 4: Adjustments to Cost of Manufacturing for Period of Review

Comment 5: Equivalent Units Work-In-Process Adjustment

Weikfield

Comment 6: New Factual Information

Comment 7: Capitalization of Pre-Production Expenses

Comment 8: Claim for Start-up Adjustment

Comment 9: Treatment of Work-In-Process

Comment 10: Capitalized Interest Expense

Comment 11: Affiliated Party Interest

Himalya International

Comment 12: Omission of Certain U.S. Sales from Margin Calculation

Comment 13: Facts Available for U.S. Brokerage and Handling Expenses

Comment 14: Treatment of Certain Movement Expenses

Comment 15: Calculation of Indirect Selling Expenses for Constructed Value

Comment 16: Offsetting Positive Margins with Negative Margins in Antidumping Duty Margin Calculation

Comment 17: General and Administrative Expense Ratio

Comment 18: Financial Expense Ratio

Footnotes

1.  The petitioners are the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the American Mushroom Institute and the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushroom farms, Inc., Toughkenamon, PA; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp., Temple, PA; Mushrooms Canning Company, Kennett Square, PA; Southwood Farms, Hockessin, DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; United Canning Corp., North Lima, OH.