Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile, 6618-6620 [E5-515]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6618
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Notices
Written comments must be
submitted on or before April 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, DOC Paperwork
Clearance Officer, (202) 482–0266,
Department of Commerce, Room 6625,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 or via Internet at
DHynek@doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument(s) and instructions should
be directed to Pat Heinig, BIS ICB
Liaison, (202) 482–4848, Department of
Commerce, Room 6716, 14th &
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. Abstract
The Defense Production Act of 1950,
as amended, and Executive Order
12919, authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to assess the capabilities of
the defense industrial base to support
the national defense and to develop
policy alternatives to improve the
international competitiveness of specific
domestic industries and their abilities to
meet defense program needs. The
information collected from voluntary
surveys will be used to assist small and
medium-sized firms in defense
transition and in gaining access to
advanced technologies and
manufacturing processes available from
Federal Laboratories. The goal is to
improve regions of the country
adversely by cutbacks in defense
spending and military base closures.
II. Method of Collection
Survey.
III. Data
OMB Number: 0694–0083.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission
for extension of a currently approved
collection.
Affected Public: Individuals,
businesses or other for-profit and notfor-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
3,000.
Estimated Time Per Response: 30
minutes per response.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 1,500.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: No
start-up capital expenditures.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:12 Feb 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they will also become a matter of public
record.
Dated: February 2, 2005.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–2328 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–337–806]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review:
Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries From Chile
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
individually quick frozen red
raspberries from Chile. We gave
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results and
have made certain changes for the final
results. We find that certain companies
reviewed sold individually quick frozen
red raspberries from Chile in the United
States below normal value during the
period December 31, 2001, through June
30, 2003.
DATES: Effective Date: February 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yasmin Bordas or Cole Kyle, Office 1,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3813 and (202)
482–1503, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
On August 6, 2004, the Department
published the Notice of Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries From Chile, 69 FR 47869
(August 6, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’)
in the Federal Register.
On September 7, 2004, we received
case briefs from The Pacific Northwest
Berry Association and each of its
individual members, Curt Maberry
Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., Maberry
Packing, and Rader Farms, Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’), and
Fruticola Olmue, S.A. (‘‘Olmue’’).
On September 17, 2004, we received
rebuttal briefs from the petitioners,
Olmue, H.J. Uren & Sons and Uren Chile
S.A. (‘‘Uren’’), and Santiago Comercio
Exterior Exportaciones Limitada
(‘‘SANCO’’).
On October 28, 2004, we rejected
Olmue’s rebuttal brief because it
contained new factual information.
Olmue filed a revised rebuttal brief on
November 1, 2004, redacting the new
factual information submitted in the
original rebuttal brief.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are imports of individually quick frozen
(‘‘IQF’’) whole or broken red raspberries
from Chile, with or without the addition
of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety,
grade, size or horticulture method (e.g.,
organic or not), the size of the container
in which packed, or the method of
packing. The scope of the order
excludes fresh red raspberries and block
frozen red raspberries (i.e., puree,
straight pack, juice stock, and juice
concentrate).
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable under
0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise under
the order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is
December 31, 2001, through June 30,
2003.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this review
are addressed in the February 2, 2005
Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Individually
Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from
Chile (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Notices
is hereby adopted by this notice.
Attached to this notice as an appendix
is a list of the issues which parties have
raised and to which we have responded
in the Decision Memorandum. 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 Department’s Central Records Unit,
Room B–099 of the main Department
building (‘‘CRU’’). In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/
index.html. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Facts Otherwise Available
For the final results, the Department
continues to find that Uren’s largest
supplier, which, as a producer of subject
merchandise, is an interested party in
this proceeding, did not act to the best
of its ability by failing to provide cost
of production information requested by
the Department. Thus, the Department
continues to find that the use of adverse
facts available is warranted under
section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended effective January 1, 1995 (‘‘the
Act’’), by the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). See
Preliminary Results at 69 FR 47869,
47871–47873 and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of IQF red
raspberries from Chile to the United
States were made at less than normal
value, we compared export price (‘‘EP’’)
to the normal value (‘‘NV’’). Our
calculations followed the methodologies
described in the preliminary results,
except as noted below, and in the final
results calculation memoranda cited
below, which are on file in the CRU.
Export Price
We used EP as defined in section
772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP for
Uren and SANCO based on the same
methodologies described in the
preliminary results. See ‘‘Uren Chile,
S.A. Final Results Calculation
Memorandum,’’ dated February 2, 2005,
(‘‘Uren Calculation Memorandum’’) and
‘‘Santiago Comercio Exterior
Exportaciones Limitada Calculation
Memorandum,’’ dated February 2, 2005,
(‘‘SANCO Calculation Memorandum’’).
For Olmue, we calculated EP based on
the same methodologies described in
the preliminary results, with the
exception of using a revised calculation
of U.S. credit expenses. See ‘‘Fruticola
Olmue, S.A. Final Results Calculation
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:12 Feb 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
Memorandum,’’ dated February 2, 2005,
(‘‘Olmue Calculation Memorandum’’).
Normal Value
A. Cost of Production
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
We calculated the cost of production
(‘‘COP’’) in accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act. For SANCO and
Olmue, we calculated the COP using the
same methodologies described in the
preliminary results. See SANCO
Calculation Memorandum; see also
Olmue Calculation Memorandum. For
Uren, we calculated the COP using the
same methodologies described in the
preliminary results, with the exception
of using a revised general and
administrative expenses ratio. See
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5;
see also Uren Calculation
Memorandum.
a. Test of Comparison Market Prices
We tested whether comparison market
sales of the foreign like product were
made at prices below the COP in
accordance with section 773(b) of the
Act, using the same methodologies
described in the preliminary results.
b. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the
Act, where less than 20 percent of a
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the POR were at prices less than
the COP, we do not disregard any
below-cost sales of that product because
we determine that in such instances the
below-cost sales were not made in
‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20
percent or more of a respondent’s sales
of a given product are at prices less than
the COP, we determine that the belowcost sales represent ‘‘substantial
quantities’’ within an extended period
of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases,
we also determine whether such sales
were made at prices which would not
permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time, in accordance
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
We found that, for Olmue, SANCO
and Uren, for certain specific products,
more than 20 percent of the comparison
market sales were at prices less than the
COP and, thus, the below-cost sales
were made within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities. In
addition, these sales were made at
prices that did not provide for the
recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. We therefore excluded
these sales and used the remaining
sales, if any, as the basis for determining
NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6619
For U.S. sales of subject merchandise
for which there were no comparable
comparison market sales in the ordinary
course of trade (e.g., sales that passed
the cost test), we compared those sales
to constructed value (‘‘CV’’), in
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the
Act.
B. Calculation of Constructed Value
We calculated CV in accordance with
sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the
Act. We used the same methodologies
described in the preliminary results.
Where appropriate, we made the same
adjustments to the CV costs as described
in the ‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of
this notice.
C. Level of Trade
We continue to find that one level of
trade (‘‘LOT’’) exists in the comparison
and U.S. markets for Olmue and
SANCO. For Uren, we continue to find
that two LOTs exist in the comparison
market and that one LOT exists in the
U.S. market. See Decision Memorandum
at Comment 4. Therefore, for the final
results, we have continued to match
Uren’s U.S. sales with its comparison
market sales at the same LOT, where
possible, in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In comparing EP
sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market, where available
data make it practicable, we make an
LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on
comparison market prices in accordance
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.410 and 411 (2003). For
SANCO and Olmue, we used the same
methodologies described in the
preliminary results. For Uren, we used
the same methodologies described in
the preliminary results, with the
exception of using a we recalculated
Uren’sindirect selling expenses ratio.
See Decision Memorandum at Comment
5; see also Uren Calculation
Memorandum.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Constructed Value
We calculated NV based on CV using
the same methodologies described in
the preliminary results, in accordance
with sections 773(a) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.410.
Final Results of the Review
For the firms listed below, we find
that the following percentage margins
exist for the period December 31, 2001,
through June 30, 2003:
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
6620
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Notices
which case the cash deposit rate will be
zero; (2) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, but was covered
Fruticola Olmue, S.A. ...........
1.23 in a previous review, or the original
investigation, the cash deposit rate will
Santiago Comercio Exterior
Exportaciones, Ltda. .........
0.25 continue to be the company-specific rate
(de minimis) published for the most recent period; (3)
Uren Chile, S.A. ....................
13.41 if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review, a previous review, or the
Assessment Rates
original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
will be the rate established for the most
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
recent period for the manufacturer of
duties on all appropriate entries. In
the merchandise; and (4) the cash
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
have calculated importer (or customer)and/or exporters shall continue to be
specific assessment rates for
6.33 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate made
merchandise subject to this review. To
effective by the less-than-fair-value
determine whether the duty assessment investigation. See 67 FR 45460 (July 9,
rates were de minimis (i.e., at or below
2002).
0.5 percent), in accordance with the
These requirements, when imposed,
requirement set forth in 19 CFR
shall remain in effect until publication
351.106(C)(2), for each respondent we
of the final results of the next
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating administrative review.
the dumping margins calculated for all
Notification to Importers
U.S. sales to that importer (or customer)
and dividing this amount by the entered
This notice serves as a final reminder
value of the sales to that importer (or
to importers of their responsibility
customer). Where an importer (or
under 19 CFR 402(f)(2) to file a
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
certificate regarding the reimbursement
greater than de minimis and the
of antidumping duties prior to
respondent has reported reliable entered liquidation of the relevant entries
values, we will apply the assessment
during this review period. Failure to
rate to the entered value of the
comply with this requirement could
importer’s/customer’s entries during the result in the Secretary’s presumption
review period. Where an importer (or
that reimbursement of antidumping
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
duties occurred and the subsequent
greater than de minimis and we did not
assessment of double antidumping
have entered values, we calculated a
duties.
per-unit assessment rate by aggregating
Exporter/manufacturer
Weighted-average margin
percentage
the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
quantity sold to that importer (or
customer).
The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP within 15 days of
publication of these final results of
review.
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
above in the ‘‘Final Results of the
Review’’ section of this notice, 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:12 Feb 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to the
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), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of return/destruction of
APO material or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulation
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice
are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: February 2, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
List of Comments in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum
General Comments
Comment 1: Calculation of Cost of
Production
Comments Relating to Uren Chile, S.A.
Comment 2: Grower and Processor Affiliation
Comment 3: Application of Adverse Facts
Available for Cost of Production
Comment 4: Level of Trade
Comment 5: Calculation of LOT Adjustment
Comment 6: Calculation of General and
Administrative Expenses
Comment 7: Calculation of Financial Expense
Ratio
Comments Relating to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.
Comment 8: Valuation of Olmue’s Fresh
Raspberries
Comment 9: Calculation of Financial Expense
Ratio
Comment 10: Calculation of U.S. Credit
Expense
Comment 11: Treatment of Unpaid
Shipments
Comment 12: Start-up Adjustment
Comment 13: Treatment of Sales Made Above
Normal Value
[FR Doc. E5–515 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–822]
Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip
in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of
the Full Sunset Review of Antidumping
Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 17, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published a notice of
preliminary results of the full sunset
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain stainless steel sheet and strip
in coils (‘‘SSSS’’) from Mexico pursuant
to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). We
provided interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We received case
and rebuttal briefs from domestic and
respondent interested parties. No
hearing was requested by parties. As a
result of this review, the Department
finds that revocation of this order would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2005.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6618-6620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-515]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-337-806]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red
raspberries from Chile. We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the preliminary results and have made certain changes for
the final results. We find that certain companies reviewed sold
individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile in the United
States below normal value during the period December 31, 2001, through
June 30, 2003.
DATES: Effective Date: February 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or Cole Kyle, Office 1,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813
and (202) 482-1503, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2004, the Department published the Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From
Chile, 69 FR 47869 (August 6, 2004) (``Preliminary Results'') in the
Federal Register.
On September 7, 2004, we received case briefs from The Pacific
Northwest Berry Association and each of its individual members, Curt
Maberry Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., Maberry Packing, and Rader Farms,
Inc. (collectively, ``petitioners''), and Fruticola Olmue, S.A.
(``Olmue'').
On September 17, 2004, we received rebuttal briefs from the
petitioners, Olmue, H.J. Uren & Sons and Uren Chile S.A. (``Uren''),
and Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada (``SANCO'').
On October 28, 2004, we rejected Olmue's rebuttal brief because it
contained new factual information. Olmue filed a revised rebuttal brief
on November 1, 2004, redacting the new factual information submitted in
the original rebuttal brief.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are imports of individually
quick frozen (``IQF'') whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with
or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety,
grade, size or horticulture method (e.g., organic or not), the size of
the container in which packed, or the method of packing. The scope of
the order excludes fresh red raspberries and block frozen red
raspberries (i.e., puree, straight pack, juice stock, and juice
concentrate).
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable
under 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under the order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is December 31, 2001, through June
30, 2003.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the February 2, 2005 Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile (``Decision
Memorandum''), which
[[Page 6619]]
is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an
appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which
we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. 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 Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main
Department building (``CRU''). In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Facts Otherwise Available
For the final results, the Department continues to find that Uren's
largest supplier, which, as a producer of subject merchandise, is an
interested party in this proceeding, did not act to the best of its
ability by failing to provide cost of production information requested
by the Department. Thus, the Department continues to find that the use
of adverse facts available is warranted under section 776 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''), by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). See Preliminary Results at 69
FR 47869, 47871-47873 and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the
United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export
price (``EP'') to the normal value (``NV''). Our calculations followed
the methodologies described in the preliminary results, except as noted
below, and in the final results calculation memoranda cited below,
which are on file in the CRU.
Export Price
We used EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated
EP for Uren and SANCO based on the same methodologies described in the
preliminary results. See ``Uren Chile, S.A. Final Results Calculation
Memorandum,'' dated February 2, 2005, (``Uren Calculation Memorandum'')
and ``Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada Calculation
Memorandum,'' dated February 2, 2005, (``SANCO Calculation
Memorandum''). For Olmue, we calculated EP based on the same
methodologies described in the preliminary results, with the exception
of using a revised calculation of U.S. credit expenses. See ``Fruticola
Olmue, S.A. Final Results Calculation Memorandum,'' dated February 2,
2005, (``Olmue Calculation Memorandum'').
Normal Value
A. Cost of Production
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
We calculated the cost of production (``COP'') in accordance with
section 773(b)(3) of the Act. For SANCO and Olmue, we calculated the
COP using the same methodologies described in the preliminary results.
See SANCO Calculation Memorandum; see also Olmue Calculation
Memorandum. For Uren, we calculated the COP using the same
methodologies described in the preliminary results, with the exception
of using a revised general and administrative expenses ratio. See
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see also Uren Calculation Memorandum.
a. Test of Comparison Market Prices
We tested whether comparison market sales of the foreign like
product were made at prices below the COP in accordance with section
773(b) of the Act, using the same methodologies described in the
preliminary results.
b. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were
at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales
of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-
cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at
prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost sales
represent ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we
also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
We found that, for Olmue, SANCO and Uren, for certain specific
products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at
prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In
addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore
excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
For U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no
comparable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade
(e.g., sales that passed the cost test), we compared those sales to
constructed value (``CV''), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the
Act.
B. Calculation of Constructed Value
We calculated CV in accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and
(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used the same methodologies described in the
preliminary results. Where appropriate, we made the same adjustments to
the CV costs as described in the ``Calculation of COP'' section of this
notice.
C. Level of Trade
We continue to find that one level of trade (``LOT'') exists in the
comparison and U.S. markets for Olmue and SANCO. For Uren, we continue
to find that two LOTs exist in the comparison market and that one LOT
exists in the U.S. market. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Therefore, for the final results, we have continued to match Uren's
U.S. sales with its comparison market sales at the same LOT, where
possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In
comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where
available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on comparison market prices in accordance
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 and 411 (2003).
For SANCO and Olmue, we used the same methodologies described in the
preliminary results. For Uren, we used the same methodologies described
in the preliminary results, with the exception of using a we
recalculated Uren'sindirect selling expenses ratio. See Decision
Memorandum at Comment 5; see also Uren Calculation Memorandum.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
We calculated NV based on CV using the same methodologies described
in the preliminary results, in accordance with sections 773(a) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
Final Results of the Review
For the firms listed below, we find that the following percentage
margins exist for the period December 31, 2001, through June 30, 2003:
[[Page 6620]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter/manufacturer average margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruticola Olmue, S.A.................................... 1.23
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda.......... 0.25
(de minimis)
Uren Chile, S.A......................................... 13.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
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(b), we have
calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., at or below 0.5 percent), in
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(C)(2), for
each respondent we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by
the entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we
will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/
customer's entries during the review period. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and we
did not have entered values, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate
by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity
sold to that importer (or customer).
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of
review.
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 above in the ``Final Results of the
Review'' section of this notice, 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) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a
previous review, or the original investigation, 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 previous 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 (4)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers and/or exporters
shall continue to be 6.33 percent, the ``all others'' rate made
effective by the less-than-fair-value investigation. See 67 FR 45460
(July 9, 2002).
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 402(f)(2) 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.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
the 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), which continues to govern
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding.
Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO material or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This administrative review and notice are published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5).
Dated: February 2, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I
List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
General Comments
Comment 1: Calculation of Cost of Production
Comments Relating to Uren Chile, S.A.
Comment 2: Grower and Processor Affiliation
Comment 3: Application of Adverse Facts Available for Cost of
Production
Comment 4: Level of Trade
Comment 5: Calculation of LOT Adjustment
Comment 6: Calculation of General and Administrative Expenses
Comment 7: Calculation of Financial Expense Ratio
Comments Relating to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.
Comment 8: Valuation of Olmue's Fresh Raspberries
Comment 9: Calculation of Financial Expense Ratio
Comment 10: Calculation of U.S. Credit Expense
Comment 11: Treatment of Unpaid Shipments
Comment 12: Start-up Adjustment
Comment 13: Treatment of Sales Made Above Normal Value
[FR Doc. E5-515 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
