[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42487-42492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20733]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-813]
Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand; Preliminary Results and
Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial termination of
antidumping duty administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by respondents Siam Food Products
Public Company Ltd. (SFP), The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd.
(TIPCO), and Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC), the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF)
from Thailand. The review covers three manufacturers/exporters of the
subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is January 11, 1995,
through June 30, 1996.
We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have
been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess
antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit case briefs in this proceeding should
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Adler, at (202) 482-1442, or
Kris Campbell, at (202) 482-3813; Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC. 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations refer to the
regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 353, as they existed on April 1,
1997.
Background
On July 18, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. See
60 FR 36775. On July 8, 1996, the Department published a notice
providing an opportunity to request an administrative review of this
antidumping duty order for the period January 11, 1995, through June
30, 1996. See 61 FR 35712. On July 31, 1996, we received timely
requests for review from the following respondents: SFP; TIPCO; TPC;
Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole
Thailand, Ltd. (collectively referred to hereafter as ``Dole''); Thai
Bonanza International Corp., Ltd. (Thai Bonanza); and Vita Food Factory
(Vita Food). On September 5, 1996, we issued an antidumping
questionnaire to the six companies that had requested a review.
Thai Bonanza and Vita Food withdrew their requests for review on
September 9, 1996, and Dole withdrew its request for review on November
7, 1996. Because there were no other requests for review of these
companies from any other interested parties, and because the letters
withdrawing the requests for review were timely filed, we are
terminating the review with respect to these companies in accordance
with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).
On December 12, 1996, Maui Pineapple, Ltd. (the petitioner) alleged
that SFP and TPC had each sold the foreign like product at prices below
their respective cost of production (COP). On January 13, 1997, we
initiated a sales-below-cost investigation with respect to these two
companies. We also initiated a COP investigation of sales by TIPCO
because we disregarded sales below the COP in the last completed
segment of the proceeding for this company. See ``Cost of Production
Analysis'' below.
On January 29, 1997, we published a notice of postponement of the
preliminary results. See 62 FR 4250.
Scope of Review
The product covered by this review is canned pineapple fruit. For
purposes of this review, CPF is defined as pineapple processed and/or
prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks,
tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans
with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is currently
classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS
2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS
2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e., juice-
packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is
dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and
cost information provided by all three respondents. We used standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacturer's facilities and examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the
verification reports placed in the case file.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP or CEP as defined in
sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, as appropriate.
TPC
In accordance with sections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by
TPC to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to
importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of
record. In accordance with sections 772 (b), (c) and (d) of the Act, we
calculated a CEP for sales that took place after importation into the
United States and for which U.S. sales activities, including the
setting of prices, took place in the United States through affiliated
U.S. resellers. EP and CEP were based on the packed FOB, CIF, or
delivered price to unaffiliated
[[Page 42488]]
purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. As
appropriate, we made deductions for discounts and rebates, including
early payment discounts, promotional allowances, freight allowances,
and billback discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act;
these included inland freight from plant to port of exportation,
foreign brokerage and handling, other miscellaneous foreign port
charges, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs
brokerage, U.S. customs duty, harbor maintenance fees, merchandise
processing fee, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to
warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer).
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from
CEP selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in
the United States, including commissions, direct selling expenses
(credit costs, introduction allowances, and warranty expenses), and
indirect selling expenses (incurred by TPC in Thailand and by TPC's
affiliated reseller in the United States). We increased the reported
indirect selling expenses for sales through TPC's affiliated U.S.
reseller to account for unreported expenses found at verification. We
also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section
772(d)(3) of the Act.
No other adjustments to EP or CEP were claimed or allowed.
We relied on the date of contract as the date of sale for all of
TPC's EP sales. The preamble to the Department's post-URAA regulations
states that while the Department will normally rely on the date of
invoice as the date of sale (i.e., the date on which the material terms
of sale are established), the Department will use another date if the
material terms of sale are finally established on that alternative
date. See 62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, 1997). While these regulations do
not govern the instant review, they do describe the Department's
current practice with respect to date of sale. See id. at 27378. The
terms of all of TPC's EP sales during the POR were set by contract, and
there were virtually no changes to the contracted terms of these sales.
(Out of hundreds of sales, there was only a single instance of changes
to the terms of the contracts.) Therefore, for these sales, we have
found that the date of contract provides a more appropriate basis for
date of sale than the date of invoice. As for TPC's CEP sales, these
are made from inventory within a few days of receipt of purchase order.
Although at verification we found that the terms of CEP sales almost
never change from those shown on the purchase order, we also found that
purchase orders were received in a variety of different formats, and
that the dates of purchase order were not systematically recorded.
Therefore, for TPC's CEP sales we have based the date of sale on the
date of the invoice issued by TPC's affiliated resellers.
TIPCO
In accordance with sections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated an EP for all of TIPCO's sales, since the merchandise was
sold either directly by TIPCO or indirectly through its U.S. affiliate,
TIPCO Marketing Co. (TMC), to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted
based on the facts of record. Sales through TMC involved direct
shipment from TIPCO to the unaffiliated customer, without any
merchandise entering TMC's physical inventory; further, TMC's
involvement in the sales process for indirect sales was limited to that
of a processor of sales documentation and did not extend in any way to
negotiation of sales terms or other selling functions. We calculated EP
based on the packed FOB or CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers for
exportation to the United States. We made deductions from EP for
rebates. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign movement
expenses (brokerage and handling, port charges, liner expenses,
stuffing expenses, and inland freight), international freight, U.S.
customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling.
No other adjustments to EP were claimed or allowed.
For all sales by TIPCO, the material terms of sale were initially
set on the date of purchase order but were frequently modified up to
the date of invoice. Therefore, in accordance with the date of sale
methodology described above, we have relied on the date of invoice as
the date of sale.
The merchandise involved in certain U.S. sales reported by TIPCO
was produced by unaffiliated suppliers. We did not include in our
analysis sales of merchandise produced by one such supplier because we
determined that this supplier had knowledge that the merchandise was
destined for export to the United States. See Memorandum from Case
Analysts to Office Director: Verification of Sales by the Thai
Pineapple Public Co., Ltd., July 30, 1997, at 5-6. We included TIPCO's
other U.S. sales involving merchandise produced by unaffiliated
suppliers in our analysis because we determined that these suppliers
did not have knowledge of exportation to the United States. Id. We
compared these U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of identical
merchandise produced by TIPCO, as facts available, because: (1) There
were no appropriate third-country matches involving merchandise
produced by the same suppliers and (2) TIPCO did not provide
information regarding these suppliers' production costs.
SFP
In accordance with sections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated an EP for all of SFP's sales, since the merchandise was sold
directly by SFP to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to importation, and a CEP was not otherwise warranted
based on the facts of record. We made deductions from EP for discounts.
We also made deductions for foreign inland movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
No other adjustments to EP were claimed or allowed.
For all sales by SFP, the material terms of sale were initially set
on the date of purchase order but were frequently modified up to the
date of invoice. Therefore, in accordance with the date of sale
methodology described above, we have relied on the date of invoice as
the date of sale.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product
each respondent sold in the exporting country did not permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, because the
quantity of each company's sales in its home market was less than five
percent of the quantity of its sales to the U.S. market. In accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, and consistent with our practice,
we therefore based NV on the prices at which the foreign like products
were first sold for consumption in each respondent's largest third-
country market, i.e., the United Kingdom for SFP, and Germany for TIPCO
and TPC. See Memoranda from the team to Richard Moreland, dated
February 24, 1997, regarding the selection of third-country market for
each respondent.
TPC
Third-country market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We made
[[Page 42489]]
adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made adjustments for movement expenses
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act; these included inland
freight from plant to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and
handling, other miscellaneous foreign port charges, and international
freight. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For comparison
to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, letter of
credit charges, and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (credit expenses, letter of credit charges, bank charges, and
warranties). For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on third-country market
sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses other than those deducted
from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d)
of the Act (i.e., we added expenses for letters of credit and bank
charges incurred by TPC in Thailand). We also made adjustments, where
applicable, for indirect selling expenses incurred on third-country
sales to offset commissions in EP and CEP calculations; specifically,
we deducted from normal value the lesser of (1) the amount of
commission paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or (2) the
amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the third-country
market sales for a particular product.
No other adjustments to NV were claimed (except for a CEP offset;
see ``Level of Trade'' section below), or allowed.
We relied on the date of contract as the date of sale for all of
TPC's third country sales. As discussed in the ``Export Price and
Constructed Export Price'' section above, while the Department will
normally rely on the date of invoice as the date of sale, the
Department will use another date if the material terms of sale are
finally established on that alternative date. The terms of all of TPC's
third-country sales during the POR were set by contract, and there were
virtually no changes to the contracted terms of these sales. (Out of
hundreds of sales, there were only three instances of changes to the
terms of the contracts.) Therefore, for these sales, we have found that
the date of contract provides a more appropriate basis for date of sale
than the date of invoice.
TIPCO
Third-country market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We made
adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made adjustments for movement expenses
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act; these included foreign
movement expenses (brokerage and handling, port charges, liner
expenses, stuffing expenses, and inland freight), and international
freight. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as
for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct
selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit
expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(credit expenses, bank charges, and warranties). We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for indirect selling expenses incurred
on third-country sales to offset U.S. commissions in EP calculations;
specifically, we deducted from normal value the lesser of (1) the
amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or
(2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the third-
country market sales for a particular product.
No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed.
For all sales by TIPCO, the material terms of sale were initially
set on the date of purchase order but were frequently modified up to
the date of invoice. Therefore, in accordance with the date of sale
methodology described above, we have relied on the date of invoice as
the date of sale.
SFP
Third-country market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United Kingdom. We
made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made adjustments for foreign movement
expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition,
we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences
in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in COS in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56.
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred
for third-country market sales (credit expenses and bank charges) and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, bank charges, and
warranties). We also made adjustments, where applicable, for indirect
selling expenses incurred on third-country sales to offset U.S.
commissions on EP sales; specifically, we deducted from normal value
the lesser of (1) the amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale for a
particular product, or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses
incurred on the third-country market sales for a particular product.
No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed.
For all sales by SFP, the material terms of sale were initially set
on the date of purchase order but were frequently modified up to the
date of invoice. Therefore, in accordance with the date of sale
methodology described above, we have relied on the date of invoice as
the date of sale.
Level of Trade/CEP Offset
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA at 829-
831, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based
on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. When the
Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the
comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale, the
Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different level of
trade in the comparison market.
When CEP sales have been made in the United States, as is the
situation in TPC's case, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes
that a CEP ``offset'' may be made provided that two conditions exist:
(1) NV is established at a level of trade that is at a more advanced
stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP; and (2) the
data available do not permit a determination that there is a pattern of
consistent price differences between sales at different levels of trade
in the comparison market.
Our practice is to determine that sales are made at different
levels of trade if they are made at different marketing stages (or
their equivalent). Substantial differences in selling activities are a
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is
a difference in the stage of marketing. See Notice of Final Results:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Antifriction
[[Page 42490]]
Bearings from France et al., 62 FR 2081, 2105 (January 15, 1997). See
also 19 CFR 351.412 of the Department's revised regulations (62 FR
27296, 27414-27415 (May 19, 1997)) for a concise description of this
practice.
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information from each respondent about the marketing stage involved in
the reported U.S. and third-country market sales and a description of
the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of
distribution. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the
SAA at 827, in identifying levels of trade for EP and third-country
market sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the
starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered
only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction
of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that,
if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities
of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that
levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the
functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
TPC
During the POR, TPC made sales through different channels of
distribution in the U.S. and German markets. In the United States, TPC
made both direct sales to unaffiliated customers and sales through
affiliated U.S. resellers Mitsubishi International Corporation (MIC)
and MC Foods, Inc. (MFI). In Germany, TPC made both direct sales and
indirect sales through an affiliated reseller in the Netherlands,
Princes Foods B.V. (Princes).
We compared the selling activities performed by TPC for EP sales to
the activities performed by TPC and MIC/MFI for CEP sales (after
excluding those selling activities related to the expenses deducted
under section 772(d) of the Act), and found them to be both limited in
scope and essentially identical. The functions that TPC performed on
both direct and indirect sales were limited to negotiation of prices,
processing of purchase orders, and invoicing. Therefore, we have
preliminarily found that there is a single level of trade in the United
States for both EP and CEP sales. Similarly, we compared the selling
functions and activities performed by TPC for direct sales to Germany
to the functions and activities performed by TPC and Princes for
indirect sales to Germany. These activities were also limited to
negotiating prices with German customers, invoicing those customers,
and making limited sales calls. In essence, the only difference in
selling activity between TPC's direct and indirect sales to Germany is
that indirect sales involved the issuance of an additional invoice
among affiliated parties, and this difference does not establish a
significantly more advanced marketing stage. Therefore, we have
considered TPC's direct and indirect sales to Germany as being at a
single level of trade.
Because the selling functions performed for TPC's sales in the two
markets are essentially the same, irrespective of channel of
distribution, we find that all of TPC's sales were made at a single
level of trade. Therefore, no level of trade adjustment or CEP offset
is warranted in the calculation of TPC's antidumping margin.
SFP and TIPCO
In this review, SFP and TIPCO claimed that all of their sales were
made at a similar channel of distribution (direct sales to customers in
export markets), and involved identical selling functions, irrespective
of market. In examining these selling functions, we found that sales
activities were indeed limited to negotiation of prices, processing of
purchase orders/contracts, invoicing, and collection of payment; there
was little or no strategic and economic planning, advertising or sales
promotion, technical services, technical assistance, or after-sale
service performed in either market. Therefore, for these two
respondents we have preliminarily found that there is a single (and
identical) level of trade in both markets, and no level of trade
adjustment is required for comparison of U.S. sales to third-country
sales.
Cost of Production Analysis
As stated above, based on timely allegations filed by the
petitioner, the Department initiated cost of production (COP)
investigations of SFP and TPC to determine whether sales were made at
prices below the COP. See Memorandum from the team to Barbara Stafford,
dated January 10, 1997.
Because we disregarded sales below the COP in the last completed
segment of the proceeding for TIPCO (i.e., the less-than-fair-value
investigation), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that
sales of the foreign product under consideration for the determination
of NV in this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales
by TIPCO in the third-country comparison market.
We conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of
materials, fabrication and general expenses, and packing costs. We
relied on the submitted COPs, except in the following specific
instances where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified
or valued.
General--Fruit Cost Allocation
The Department's long-standing practice, now codified at section
773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, is to rely on a company's normal books and
records if such records are in accordance with home country generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and reasonably reflect the costs
associated with production of the merchandise. In addition, as the
statute indicates, the Department considers whether an accounting
methodology, particulary an allocation methodology, has been
historically used by the company. See section 773 (f)(1)(A) of the Act.
During the POR, TIPCO, SFP and TPC abandoned their historical fruit
cost allocation methodology. We reviewed each of the newly adopted
fruit cost allocation methodologies, and found that all three were
based on the relative weight of the fruit contained in the CPF
produced. As discussed in the final determination in the underlying
investigation (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29561 (June
5, 1995)), allocating fresh pineapple fruit costs to various pineapple
products solely on the basis of weight (i.e., a quantitative factor) is
inappropriate. Cores and shells are used in juice production, while
trimmed and cored pineapple cylinders are used in CPF production.
Because these various parts of a pineapple are not interchangeable when
it comes to CPF versus juice production, it would be unreasonable to
value all parts of the pineapple equally by using a weight-based
allocation methodology. The revised fruit cost allocation methodologies
which each company changed to during the POR were weight-based and did
not incorporate any measure of the qualitative factor of the different
parts of the pineapple. As a result, such methodologies, although in
conformity with Thai GAAP, do not reasonably reflect the costs
associated with production of CPF.
[[Page 42491]]
Therefore, for each company, we recalculated the fruit cost
allocated to CPF based on a net realizable value (NRV) methodology. As
described in the final determination of the underlying investigation,
this NRV methodology reasonably reflects costs associated with CPF
production. See id. at 29560. The NRV methodology was based on company-
specific historical amounts for sales and separable costs during the
five-year period of 1990 through 1994.
In addition to the revised fruit cost allocation described above,
we made the following company-specific adjustments to the submitted
costs.
TIPCO
1. We revised packing medium cost for juice packed products and the
can costs to reflect corrections obtained at verification. See Cost
Verification Report from William H. Jones to Christian B. Marsh, dated
July 3, 1997.
2. We adjusted certain costs incurred prior to the split-off point
which were improperly allocated.
3. We revised TIPCO's general and administrative (G&A) expenses to
exclude foreign exchange gains generated by accounts receivable.
4. We revised TIPCO's financial expenses using its consolidated
financial expenses.
SFP
1. We revised the total pineapple fruit costs to include year-end
adjustments for physical inventory, plantation costs, and skin and core
revenues. See Cost Verification Report from William H. Jones to
Christian B. Marsh, dated July 3, 1997 (SFP cost verification report).
2. We revised the costs of cans, sugar, labor, overhead and packing
to reflect corrections obtained at verification. See SFP cost
verification report.
3. We revised SFP's G&A rate to reflect the expenses incurred
during the fiscal year ended September 30, 1995.
4. We revised SFP's net financial expense to reflect expenses and
short-term interest income for the fiscal year ended September 30,
1995.
TPC
1. We revised the can and packing material cost to reflect
corrections obtained at verification. See Cost Verification Report from
Theresa L. Caherty to Christian B. Marsh, dated July 2, 1997 (TPC cost
verification report).
2. We revised the packing costs to include fixed packing costs and
to correct errors found at verification. See TPC cost verification
report.
3. We calculated a single weighted-average cost for products with
identical physical characteristics.
4. We recalculated TPC's financial expense rate to include interest
expenses incurred to include net foreign exchange losses from loans,
investments and operations; and to include short-term interest revenue.
B. Test of Third-Country Comparison Market Sales Prices
We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for each respondent
to the third-country comparison market sales of the foreign like
product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we
compared the revised COP to the third-country comparison market prices,
less any applicable movement charges, taxes, rebates, commissions and
other direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a
respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because
we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product were made at prices below the COP, we disregarded the
below-cost sales because such sales were found to be made within an
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities'' in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and based on comparisons
of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR we determined that the
below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where all contemporaneous sales
of a specific product were made at prices below the COP, we calculated
NV based on CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
We found that, for certain CPF products, TIPCO, SFP and TPC made
third-country comparison market sales at below COP prices within an
extended period of time in substantial quantities. Further, we found
that these sales prices did not permit for the recovery of costs within
a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales from our
analysis in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Constructed Value
For those CPF products for which we could not determine the NV
based on comparison market sales either because (1) there were no
contemporaneous sales of a comparable product or (2) all
contemporaneous sales of the comparison product failed the COP test, we
compared export prices to CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of
the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the COM of the product
sold in the United States, plus amounts for general expenses, third-
country comparison market profit and U.S. packing costs. We calculated
each respondent's CV based on the methodology described in the
``Calculation of COP'' section of this notice, above. In accordance
with section 773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual amounts incurred and
realized by TIPCO, SFP and TPC in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the foreign country to calculate general expenses and
third-country comparison market profit.
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56 for COS
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on third-country market
sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP,
we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred
on third-country market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
except those deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP
pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act (i.e., we added letter of credit
expenses and bank charges). We also made adjustments, where applicable,
for indirect selling expenses incurred on third-country market sales to
offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons; specifically, we
deducted from normal value the lesser of (1) the amount of commission
paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or (2) the amount of
indirect selling expenses incurred on the third-country market sales
for a particular product.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions based on the official exchange rates published by the
Federal Reserve, in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales. 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
[[Page 42492]]
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. 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. However, for the
preliminary results in this review we have determined that a
fluctuation did not exist during the POR, and we have not substituted
the benchmark for the daily rate.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists for the period January 11, 1995, through June
30, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Food Products Public Company Ltd....................... 13.25
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd...................... 33.06
Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd.................. 6.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within ten days of publication. If requested, a
hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or
the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. The
Department will issue a notice of the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such briefs, within 120 days from the
publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty
assessment purposes, we calculated, on an importer-specific basis, an
assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales and dividing this amount by the total entered value of
subject merchandise sold during the POR. This rate will be used for the
assessment of antidumping duties on the relevant entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. Furthermore, the following deposit
requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of
this administrative review for all shipments of canned pineapple fruit
from Thailand 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 rate for SFP, TIPCO, and TPC will be the rate
established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original
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 (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer
is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 24.64
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation. See 60 FR 36775, 36776 (July 18, 1995).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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
sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR
353.22, and 19 CFR 353.25.
Dated: July 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-20733 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
