[Federal Register: August 20, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 51630-51632]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20au04-30]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-813]
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, 2004, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the fourth administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. The
review covers five manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is
February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.
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 20, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Katherine
Johnson, AD/CVD Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The review covers five manufacturers/exporters: Agro Dutch
Industries Ltd. (``Agro Dutch''), Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. (``Dinesh
Agro''), Premier Mushroom Farms (``Premier''), Saptarishi Agro
Industries, Ltd. (``Saptarishi Agro''), and Weikfield Agro Products
Ltd. (``Weikfield''). The period of review is February 1, 2002, through
January 31, 2003.
On March 8, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
published the preliminary results of the fourth administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India
(69 FR 10659) (``Preliminary Results''). We invited parties to comment
on the preliminary results of review. On March 22, 2004, we received a
request for a public hearing from the petitioner.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom
Trade which includes the American Mushroom Institute and the
following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc.; Modern Mushroom
Farms, Inc.; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.; Mount Laurel Canning Corp.;
Mushrooms Canning Company; Southwood Farms; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc.;
and United Canning Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 5, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register
the postponement of the final results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India
(69 FR 25063). We conducted a verification of Agro Dutch's sales data
from May 18 through May 21, 2004. At our request, Agro Dutch submitted
revised sales data bases on June 2, 2004, which incorporated revisions
resulting from the verification.
We received case briefs from Weikfield on June 7, 2004, (brief
dated June 2, 2004), and the petitioner, Agro Dutch, and Premier on
June 10, 2004. The petitioner and Agro Dutch filed rebuttal briefs on
June 17, 2004. Agro Dutch withdrew its rebuttal brief on June 22, 2004,
and submitted a replacement brief on June 24, 2004.\2\ On June 28,
2004, the petitioner withdrew its request for a public hearing. We have
conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The circumstances regarding the withdrawal and replacement
of the Agro Dutch rebuttal brief are discussed in a June 28, 2004,
memorandum to the file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
[[Page 51631]]
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 currently classifiable
under subheadings 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137,
2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 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.
Use of Facts Available
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, neither Dinesh Agro nor
Saptarishi Agro submitted a response to the Department's antidumping
questionnaire. Because of Dinesh Agro's and Saptarishi Agro's refusal
to cooperate in this review, we determined that the application of
facts available is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the
Act. Further, we determined that it was appropriate to make adverse
inferences in applying facts available, in accordance with section
776(b) of the Act. As adverse facts available, we assigned to exports
of the subject merchandise produced by Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro
the rate of 66.24 percent, the highest rate calculated for any
cooperative respondent in the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'')
investigation or the three previous administrative reviews. We have
received no comments on this determination, nor have we found any basis
to change this determination. Accordingly, we have applied the adverse
facts available rates of 66.24 percent to the exports of the subject
merchandise produced by Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro for the POR.
Duty Absorption
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department
preliminarily determined that antidumping duties have been absorbed by
the producer or exporter during the POR on those sales for which the
respondent was the importer of record, in accordance with section
751(a)(4) of the Act, because none of the respondents responded to the
Department's request for evidence that the unaffiliated purchaser will
pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise.
Premier was the importer of record for all of its sales to the United
States, while Agro Dutch and Weikfield were the importers of record for
most of their respective U.S. sales. In addition, we found duty
absorption for both Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro on all of their
sales, based on adverse facts available, because neither company
responded to the Department's questionnaire.
As discussed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (``Decision
Memo'') from Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated August 13, 2004, at Comment 5, Agro Dutch
contended that, during verification, the Department obtained documents
which demonstrated that Agro Dutch did not absorb the duties. We
disagree with Agro Dutch's contention and find no basis to change this
determination for Agro Dutch or any of the other respondents.
Accordingly, we find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by the
producer or exporter during the POR on those sales for which the
respondent was the importer of record.
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
Decision Memo, 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/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memo are identical in content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes to the margin calculations, including:
1. We relied on the revised Israeli and U.S. sales data bases
submitted by Agro Dutch on June 2, 2004, which incorporated its
verification revisions and corrections. We also made additional data
corrections based on our verification findings.
2. In using the revised data bases, we found that all of Agro
Dutch's sales to Israel were below the COP in the final results.
Therefore, we compared all of Agro Dutch's U.S. sales to constructed
value (``CV''). Accordingly, we relied on the weighted-average selling
expenses and profit ratios derived from Premier's and Weikfield's final
results calculations to calculate CV for Agro Dutch.
3. We revised our calculation of indirect selling expenses incurred
on U.S. sales for returned merchandise to include the costs of
returning all of the merchandise back to India, rather than limiting
the expense to the un-resold portion of the returned products as we did
in the preliminary results.
4. We corrected the calculation of Agro Dutch's normal value in the
comparison market and margin calculation programs to deduct third-
country imputed credit expenses from the gross unit price, and to apply
the commission offset based on CV selling expenses in the price-to-CV
comparisons.
5. We corrected the Agro Dutch margin calculation program to make
the proper deduction for third-country commission expenses.
6. We corrected the Premier margin calculation program to treat
inventory carrying costs on U.S. sales as an Indian rupee expense,
rather than a U.S. dollar expense.
7. We corrected the calculation of Premier's normal value to deduct
properly home market commissions from the gross unit price.
8. We corrected the calculation of Weikfield's normal value to
deduct home market discounts and commissions paid to unaffiliated
parties from the gross unit price in the cost of production test and
the calculation of normal value.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages
exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd................................... 34.57
Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd................................... 66.24
Premier Mushroom Farms...................................... 18.30
Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd............................. 66.24
Weikfield Agro Products Ltd................................. 9.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51632]]
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies
subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of
these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1),
we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis
(i.e., is not less than 0.50 percent). With respect to Agro Dutch and
Premier, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for
all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales examined. For Weikfield, we do not have the
actual entered value of its sales because this respondent is not the
importer of record for some of its U.S. sales. Accordingly, we
calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all of Weikfield's U.S. sales examined
and dividing the respective amount by the total quantity of the sales
examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de
minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based
on export prices.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise 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 will be those established in the final results of this
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore de
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the
cash deposit rate will be zero; (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 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 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: August 13, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--List of Issues
Company-Specific Comments
Agro Dutch
Comment 1: Treatment of Agro Dutch's Expenses for Returned Shipments
as Direct or Indirect Expenses
Comment 2: Treatment of Inspection Expenses
Comment 3: Selling Expenses and Profit Ratio for Agro Dutch
Constructed Value
Comment 4: Corrections to the Calculation of Agro Dutch Normal Value
Comment 5: Duty Absorption on Agro Dutch's Sales
Premier
Comment 6: Errors in Premier Margin Calculation
Weikfield
Comment 7: Corrections to Calcualtion of Weikfield Normal Value >
[FR Doc. 04-19140 Filed 8-19-04; 8:45 am]