[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49577-49579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23883]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-201-601]
Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Preliminary Results and
Termination in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and termination in part of
antidumping duty administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by the Floral Trade Council
(petitioner) and one respondent, 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
ten producers/exporters, and entries of the subject merchandise into
the United States during the period April 1, 1992, through March 31,
1993. We have preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for
four of these producers. Two producers, Rancho Daisy (Daisy) and
Visaflor F. de P.R. (Visaflor), made no shipments to the United States
during the period of review (POR).
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 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 23, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Mexico (52
FR 13491). On April 9, 1993, the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping
duty order (58 FR 18374). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), the
petitioner requested an administrative review on April 30, 1993. Also
on that date, Rancho Guacatay
[[Page 49578]]
(Guacatay) requested that the Department conduct a review, and upon
completion of the review, revoke the antidumping order as it pertains
to Guacatay. We published a notice of initiation on May 27, 1993 (58 FR
3076), covering Guacatay, Daisy, Visaflor, Rancho el Aguaje (Aguaje),
Rancho el Toro (Toro), Rancho del Pacifico (Pacifico), Florex S.P.R.
(Florex), Tzitzic Tareta, S. de R.L. (Tzitzic Tareta), Rancho Alisitos
(Alisitos), Rancho Mision el Descanso, Rancho Las Dos Palmas, and Las
Flores de Mexico, and the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993.
On August 17 and 18, 1993, Daisy and Visaflor stated that they did
not ship subject merchandise from Mexico to the United States during
the POR. On November 15, 1994, the Department was informed that Rancho
Dos Palmas ceased to exist in 1986, and became Aguaje. (See memorandum
to the file dated 5/15/95.)
On August 25, 1993, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for
review with respect to Florex. Because there were no other requests for
review of this company from any other interested party, the Department
is now terminating this review with respect to Florex, in accordance
with 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations. We shall instruct
the Customs Service to liquidate Florex's entries. Because Florex is a
previously reviewed company, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate currently in effect for Florex.
The Department received no questionnaire responses from Tzitzic
Tareta, Alisitos, Mision el Descanso, and Las Flores de Mexico.
Therefore, we have based our analysis of these four respondents on the
best information available (BIA).
Verification
From March 20 through March 30, 1995, the Department conducted
verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by Aguaje,
Guacatay, Toro, and Pacifico. We used standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant accounting records and original
source documents, provided by the respondents.
Applicable Statutes and Regulations
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise
stated, all citations to the statutes and to the Department's
regulations are references to the provisions as they existed on
December 31, 1994.
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) items
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 entered into
the United States during the period April 1, 1992, through March 31,
1993.
United States Price
As in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and in
all prior administrative reviews, all United States prices were weight-
averaged on a monthly basis to account for the perishability of the
product. In accordance with the methodology established in the 1989-
1990 review, we also calculated United States price by flower type,
without regard to specific grades. (See Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56
FR 29621 (June 28, 1991).) In calculating United States price, we used
purchase price or exporter's sales price (ESP), both as defined in
section 772 of the Act. Purchase price and ESP were based, where
applicable, on the packed f.o.b. prices to the first unrelated
purchaser in the United States.
For sales made directly to unrelated parties prior to importation
into the United States, we based the United States price on purchase
price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. For sales to the
first unrelated purchaser that took place after importation into the
United States, we based United States price on ESP. Where sales were
made through a related or unrelated consignment sales agent in the
United States to an unrelated customer after the date of importation,
we also used ESP as the basis for determining United States price, in
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions from
purchase price, where applicable, for foreign and U.S. inland freight,
Mexican Customs clearance fees, and U.S. and Mexican brokerage and
handling charges. We made additional deductions from ESP, as
appropriate, for commissions to unrelated parties, indirect selling
expenses, and credit. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
In calculating foreign market value (FMV), we used home market
prices to unrelated purchasers or constructed value (CV), as defined in
section 773 of the Act.
Because the Department determined during the prior completed
administrative review that Guacatay made sales in the home market below
the cost of production (COP) (see Final Results of Administrative
Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 57 FR 19597 (May 7,
1992)), we initiated a COP investigation with respect to Guacatay.
Consistent with our past practice concerning perishable products, we
included all below-cost sales in the home market if less than 50
percent of respondent's sales were below the COP, if we determined that
the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities over an
extended period of time. We determined that below-cost sales were made
over an extended period of time if they occurred in at least three of
the months in which sales were made. If between 50 and 90 percent of
respondent's sales were below the COP, we disregarded only the below-
cost sales.
Where applicable, home market price was based on the packed,
delivered price to unrelated purchasers in the home market. When CV was
used, it consisted of the sum of the costs of materials, fabrication,
general expenses, and profit. Where the actual cost for general
expenses was below the statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of
materials and fabrication, we added the statutory minimum amount in
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. Where the actual profit was
less than the statutory minimum of eight percent of the sum of
materials, fabrication, and general expenses, we added the statutory
minimum. Where the actual amounts of general expenses and profit were
above the statutory minimum amounts, we added the actual amounts.
Where applicable, we made adjustments for inland freight,
commissions, indirect selling expenses, credit, and differences in
packing costs. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Best Information Available
Because we received no questionnaire responses from Tzitzic Tareta,
Alisitos, Mision el Descanso, and Las Flores de Mexico, we have
determined that they are uncooperative respondents. As a
[[Page 49579]]
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 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 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 not representative. 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 prior reviews 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).)
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist
for the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rancho el Aguaje....................................... 0.00
Rancho Guacatay........................................ 0.00
Rancho el Toro......................................... 0.00
Rancho del Pacifico.................................... 0.00
Rancho Daisy........................................... *0.00
Visaflor............................................... *0.00
Tzitzic Tareta......................................... 39.95
Rancho Mision el Descanso.............................. 39.95
Rancho Alisitos........................................ 39.95
Las Flores de Mexico................................... 39.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant
segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.
Because Guacatay received a preliminary margin of 39.95 percent for
the 1991-1992 review period, we have preliminarily determined not to
revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Guacatay. (See Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 60 FR 1209 (April 17, 1995).)
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: September 15, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23883 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
