Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, 44889-44893 [E5-4190]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–337–806] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile. The period of review is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. This order covers sales of individually quick frozen red raspberries with respect to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.; Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada; and Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. We preliminarily find that, during the period of review, sales of individually quick frozen red raspberries were not made below normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle, Yasmin Bordas, or Scott Holland, 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) 482–1503, (202) 482– 3813, or (202) 482–1279, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On July 9, 2002, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published an antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’) red raspberries from Chile. (See 67 FR 45460). On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of this order. (See 69 FR 39903). On July 30, 2004, we received a timely filed request for review of 52 companies from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., Maberry Packing, and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’). We received similar requests for review from Fruticola Olmue, S.A. (‘‘Olmue’’); Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda. (‘‘SANCO’’); Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. (‘‘VBM’’); Valles Andinos, S.A. (‘‘Valles VerDate jul<14>2003 16:23 Aug 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 Andinos’’); and Alimentos y Frutos and affiliate Vita Food, S.A. (‘‘Alifrut’’).1 On August 30, 2004, we initiated an administrative review of the 52 companies. (See 69 FR 52857). The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. On November 17, 2004, Alifrut withdrew its request for review. On November 18, 2004, the Department determined that it was not practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of the 52 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we selected the following four companies as respondents in this review: Olmue, SANCO, VBM, and Valles Andinos. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, ‘‘Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Respondent Selection,’’ dated November 18, 2004, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room B–099 in the main Department building. On November 18, 2004, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Olmue, SANCO, VBM, and Valles Andinos. As a result of certain below cost sales being disregarded in the previous applicable segment of the proceeding, we instructed Olmue to respond to the cost questionnaire. (For further details, see the ‘‘Cost of Production’’ section, below.) On November 29, 2004, the petitioners withdrew their request for review for all companies for which they had requested an administrative review. On December 1, 2004, the petitioners submitted a revision to correct a typographical error made in the November 29, 2004, submission. On December 7, 2004, Valles Andinos withdrew its request for review. On December 17, 2004, we rescinded the administrative review with respect to the requested companies, except Olmue, SANCO, and VBM (collectively, ‘‘the respondents’’), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). (See 69 FR 75511.) We received questionnaire responses from the respondents in December 2004 and January 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents in January and March 2005. We issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Olmue in June 2005 and July 2005. We received timely filed responses. On February 14, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this review until no later than July 29, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 1 These five companies were also included in the petitioners’ request for review of 52 companies. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44889 amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). (See 70 FR 7472.) We conducted verification of VBM’s sales from April 18 through April 22, 2005. (For further details, see the ‘‘Verification’’ section, below.) 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 subheading 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. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during April 2005, we verified the information provided by VBM in Chile using standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings on June 29, 2005. See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Verification Report - VBM’’ dated June 29, 2005. This report is on file in the Department’s CRU. 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 normal value (‘‘NV’’), as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2), we compared individual EPs to weighted– average NVs, which were calculated in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to be foreign–like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1 44890 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondents’ volume of home market sales of the foreign–like product to the volume of their U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, see the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section, below.) We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted–average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (‘‘CV’’). In making product comparisons, consistent with our determination in the original investigation, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order: grade, variety, form, cultivation method, and additives (see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile, 66 FR 67510, 67511 (December 31, 2001)). Export Price For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, Free on Board (‘‘FOB’’) plus Duty Paid, Delivered Duty Paid (‘‘DDP’’), or Cost and Freight (‘‘C&F’’) price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for rebates and billing adjustments. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, pre–sale warehousing expenses, international freight, U.S. customs duties, and other U.S. transportation expenses. To calculate EP, we relied upon the data submitted by the respondents. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:23 Aug 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Olmue and SANCO reported that their home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were less than five percent of their sales of IQF red raspberries in the United States. Therefore, Olmue and SANCO did not have viable home markets for purposes of calculating NV. Olmue reported that France was its largest third country market, and SANCO reported that the United Kingdom was its largest third country market. In both instances, sales to the third countries exceed five percent of sales to the United States. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating NV, Olmue reported its sales to France, and SANCO reported its sales to the United Kingdom. VBM reported that its home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were more than five percent of its sales of IQF red raspberries in the United States. Therefore, VBM’s home market was viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, VBM reported its home market sales for purposes of calculating NV. B. Sales to Affiliated Customers VBM made sales in the home market to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm’s length, we compared the starting prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm’s length. See Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department’s practice, sales to affiliated parties were only included in our margin analysis if the sales were made at arm’s length. C. Cost of Production As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ section above, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Olmue made sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 at prices below the cost of production (‘‘COP’’) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, for Olmue, we used the calculated COP to test for below cost sales. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we did not conduct a sales below cost inquiry for the other respondents because the Department did not have reason to believe or suspect that either respondent made below cost sales. Moreover, the Department did not receive an allegation that either respondent made below cost sales. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the cost of production (‘‘COP’’) based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses, financial expenses, and comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. See infra ‘‘Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices’’ for a discussion of the treatment of comparison market selling expenses. We relied on the respondent’s information as submitted, except for adjustments to Olmue’s fixed and variable overhead expenses due to calculation errors by the respondent. See Memorandum to Neal Harper, Director, Office of Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results–Fruticola Olmue S.A.’’ dated July 28, 2005. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices For Olmue, on a product–specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted–average COP to the comparison market sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. In determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. 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 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices 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, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP, and 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 CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. D. Calculation of Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison–market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, when sales of comparison products could not be found, either because there were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. In accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A expenses, financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We made the same adjustments to the CV costs as described in the ‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling expenses, G§A expenses, and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:23 Aug 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 E. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain of distribution’’),2 including selling functions,3 class of customer (‘‘customer category’’), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either comparison market or third country prices4), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. 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. Olmue Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in each market and claimed that its sales in both markets were at the same LOT. 2 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each respondent’s narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 3 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. 4 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44891 Therefore, Olmue did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. Olmue reported that it sold to end–users in the third country and to traders, distributors, retailers and end users in the United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar selling activities regardless of the customer category. Thus, we preliminarily find that Olmue sold at a single LOT in the comparison and U.S. markets. Moreover, sales in both markets were direct shipments to customers from the plant. Therefore, there were no differences in the channels of distribution between the two markets. Olmue also did not grant rebates or discounts, provide technical services or post–sale warehousing, or incur advertising expenses in either the third country or U.S. market. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Olmue’s sales in the comparison and U.S. markets were made at the same LOT. SANCO SANCO reported a single LOT in the comparison and U.S. markets, and claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, SANCO did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by SANCO regarding its marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. SANCO reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market. In the U.S. market, channel one, the customer pays for the international freight. In the U.S. market, channel two, SANCO pays for the international freight. In both channels of distribution, SANCO is always responsible for the inland freight expenses to the port in Chile. Also, SANCO is always the importer of record and, therefore, pays all applicable customs duties. SANCO sells to the same customer types in both channels of distribution. Except for the differences regarding the payment of international freight, there are no differences in the selling activities for these two channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in the U.S. market. SANCO has reported one channel of distribution for sales to its third country market. In this channel, SANCO’s customer is the importer of record, and is responsible for all customs duties. E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1 44892 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices SANCO is responsible for the inland freight expenses to the port in Chile. The international freight is also paid by SANCO. Because SANCO has reported no variation in the selling activities for these sales, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in SANCO’s third country market. Comparing sales in SANCO’s two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. SANCO also did not grant rebates or discounts, provide technical services or post–sale warehousing, or incur advertising expenses on either U.S. or third country sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that SANCO’s sales in the U.S. and third country markets were made at the same LOT. VBM VBM reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market, and three channels of distribution in the home market. However, because the selling functions do not differ significantly between these channels, VBM is not claiming an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by VBM regarding its marketing processes for its home market and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the types and levels of selling activities performed. VBM reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market. In the U.S. market, channel one, VBM’s product is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse before being transported to the port of shipment. In the U.S. market, channel two, VBM’s sales are transported directly from the processing plant to the port for shipment. VBM reports that there are no pricing differences between these two channels of distribution. In both channels of distribution, VBM is always responsible for the inland freight to the port in Chile. VBM is also always the importer of record and, therefore, pays all applicable customs duties. VBM sells to the same types of customer in both channels of distribution. Except for small differences regarding transportation of the product from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, there are no differences in the selling activities for these two channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in the U.S. market. VBM has reported three channels of distribution for its home market sales. In the home market, channel one, VBM’s VerDate jul<14>2003 16:23 Aug 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 product is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and is picked up directly from the warehouse by the customer. In the home market, channel two, VBM’s product is transported from the warehouse to the cold storage warehouse, and is then delivered by VBM to the customer. In the home market, channel three, VBM’s product is picked up by the customer at the processing plant. Because VBM has not reported substantial differences in the selling activities for these three channels, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in VBM’s home market. Comparing sales in VBM’s two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Although VBM did grant rebates for a few U.S. sales, it did not provide technical services or post–sale warehousing, or incur advertising expenses on either U.S. or home market sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and home markets, and that VBM’s sales in the U.S. and home markets were made at the same LOT. F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on FOB and C&F prices to unaffiliated customers in the comparison markets. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, where appropriate and, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses. These included domestic inland freight, pre–sale warehousing expenses, international freight, marine insurance, third country brokerage and handling, third country duties, and third country inland freight, where applicable. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses, where appropriate. For Olmue, we also made adjustments, where appropriate, for indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market or the United States where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise (the ‘‘DIFMER’’ adjustment), where applicable, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 351.411. We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. To calculate NV, we relied upon the data submitted by the respondents. G.Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value For price–to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we added U.S. packing costs. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily find the following weighted–average dumping margins: Exporter/manufacturer Fruticola Olmue, S.A. ... Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda. .......................... Vital Berry, S.A. ............ Weighted–average margin percentage 0.09 (de minimis) 0.00 0.00 Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer– specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculate 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 total 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 apply the assessment rate to E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2005 / Notices 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 do not have entered values, we calculate 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 the final results of this review. The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of IQF red raspberries from Chile entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a 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 LTFV 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, the 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 of this merchandise, shall be 6.33 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in Notice of Amended final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile, 67 FR 40270 (June 12, 2002). These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 16:23 Aug 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 28, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5–4190 Filed 8–3–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–588–046] Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan; Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) and the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on polychloroprene rubber from Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5050 or (202) 482– 1391, respectively. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44893 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order Merchandise covered by this antidumping duty order is shipments of polychloroprene rubber, an oil resistant synthetic rubber also known as polymerized chlorobutadiene or neoprene, currently classifiable under items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 4003.00.00, 4462.15.21 and 4462.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Background On July 1, 2004, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty order on polychloroprene rubber from Japan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).1 As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked.2 On July 21, 2005, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on polychloroprene rubber from Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3 Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on polychloroprene rubber from Japan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 69 FR 39905 (July 1, 2004), and Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan, Investigation No. AA 1921-129 (Second Review), 69 FR 39961 (July 1, 2004). 2 See Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Finding, 69 FR 64276 (November 11, 2004). 3 See USITC Publication 3786 (June 2005) and Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan, Investigation No. AA1921-129 (Second Review) 70 FR 42101 (July 21, 2005). E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44889-44893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4190]



[[Page 44889]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-337-806]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red 
raspberries from Chile. The period of review is July 1, 2003, through 
June 30, 2004. This order covers sales of individually quick frozen red 
raspberries with respect to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.; Santiago Comercio 
Exterior Exportaciones Limitada; and Vital Berry Marketing, S.A.
    We preliminarily find that, during the period of review, sales of 
individually quick frozen red raspberries were not made below normal 
value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle, Yasmin Bordas, or Scott 
Holland, 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) 482-1503, (202) 482-3813, or (202) 482-1279, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 9, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published an antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen 
(``IQF'') red raspberries from Chile. (See 67 FR 45460). On July 1, 
2004, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' of this order. (See 69 FR 39903). On July 30, 
2004, we received a timely filed request for review of 52 companies 
from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and 
each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., 
Maberry Packing, and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, ``the 
petitioners''). We received similar requests for review from Fruticola 
Olmue, S.A. (``Olmue''); Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, 
Ltda. (``SANCO''); Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. (``VBM''); Valles 
Andinos, S.A. (``Valles Andinos''); and Alimentos y Frutos and 
affiliate Vita Food, S.A. (``Alifrut'').\1\ On August 30, 2004, we 
initiated an administrative review of the 52 companies. (See 69 FR 
52857). The period of review (``POR'') is July 1, 2003, through June 
30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These five companies were also included in the petitioners' 
request for review of 52 companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 17, 2004, Alifrut withdrew its request for review. On 
November 18, 2004, the Department determined that it was not 
practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of 
the 52 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we 
selected the following four companies as respondents in this review: 
Olmue, SANCO, VBM, and Valles Andinos. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, 
``Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Respondent 
Selection,'' dated November 18, 2004, which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 in the main Department building.
    On November 18, 2004, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to Olmue, SANCO, VBM, and Valles Andinos. As a result of 
certain below cost sales being disregarded in the previous applicable 
segment of the proceeding, we instructed Olmue to respond to the cost 
questionnaire. (For further details, see the ``Cost of Production'' 
section, below.) On November 29, 2004, the petitioners withdrew their 
request for review for all companies for which they had requested an 
administrative review. On December 1, 2004, the petitioners submitted a 
revision to correct a typographical error made in the November 29, 
2004, submission. On December 7, 2004, Valles Andinos withdrew its 
request for review. On December 17, 2004, we rescinded the 
administrative review with respect to the requested companies, except 
Olmue, SANCO, and VBM (collectively, ``the respondents''), in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). (See 69 FR 75511.)
    We received questionnaire responses from the respondents in 
December 2004 and January 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires 
to the respondents in January and March 2005. We issued additional 
supplemental questionnaires to Olmue in June 2005 and July 2005. We 
received timely filed responses.
    On February 14, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an extension of the time limit for the completion of the 
preliminary results of this review until no later than July 29, 2005, 
in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). (See 70 FR 7472.)
    We conducted verification of VBM's sales from April 18 through 
April 22, 2005. (For further details, see the ``Verification'' section, 
below.)

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 subheading 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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during April 2005, we 
verified the information provided by VBM in Chile using standard 
verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. The Department reported its findings on June 29, 
2005. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification Report - VBM'' dated 
June 29, 2005. This report is on file in the Department's CRU.

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 normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2), we compared individual EPs to weighted-
average NVs, which were calculated in accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by 
the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be 
foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance

[[Page 44890]]

with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a 
viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondents' volume of 
home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of their 
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, see the 
``Normal Value'' section, below.)
    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the 
ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 
similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. 
Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in 
the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we compared U.S. 
sales to constructed value (``CV''). In making product comparisons, 
consistent with our determination in the original investigation, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by the respondent in the following order: grade, variety, 
form, cultivation method, and additives (see Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile, 66 FR 67510, 67511 
(December 31, 2001)).

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold prior 
to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We 
based EP on the packed, Free on Board (``FOB'') plus Duty Paid, 
Delivered Duty Paid (``DDP''), or Cost and Freight (``C&F'') price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported 
gross unit price, where applicable, for rebates and billing 
adjustments. We also made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions 
included, where appropriate, domestic inland freight, brokerage and 
handling, pre-sale warehousing expenses, international freight, U.S. 
customs duties, and other U.S. transportation expenses. To calculate 
EP, we relied upon the data submitted by the respondents.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    Olmue and SANCO reported that their home market sales of IQF red 
raspberries during the POR were less than five percent of their sales 
of IQF red raspberries in the United States. Therefore, Olmue and SANCO 
did not have viable home markets for purposes of calculating NV. Olmue 
reported that France was its largest third country market, and SANCO 
reported that the United Kingdom was its largest third country market. 
In both instances, sales to the third countries exceed five percent of 
sales to the United States. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating 
NV, Olmue reported its sales to France, and SANCO reported its sales to 
the United Kingdom.
    VBM reported that its home market sales of IQF red raspberries 
during the POR were more than five percent of its sales of IQF red 
raspberries in the United States. Therefore, VBM's home market was 
viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, VBM reported its 
home market sales for purposes of calculating NV.

B. Sales to Affiliated Customers

    VBM made sales in the home market to affiliated customers. To test 
whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting 
prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of unaffiliated 
customers, net of all movement charges, selling expenses, discounts, 
and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, 
within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or 
comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that 
the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison 
Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the 
Department's practice, sales to affiliated parties were only included 
in our margin analysis if the sales were made at arm's length.

C. Cost of Production

    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Olmue made sales of the 
subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost 
of production (``COP'') within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act. Therefore, for Olmue, we used the calculated COP to test for below 
cost sales.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we did not 
conduct a sales below cost inquiry for the other respondents because 
the Department did not have reason to believe or suspect that either 
respondent made below cost sales. Moreover, the Department did not 
receive an allegation that either respondent made below cost sales.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
cost of production (``COP'') based on the sum of the cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general 
and administrative (``G&A'') expenses, financial expenses, and 
comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. See infra ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' for a discussion of the treatment of 
comparison market selling expenses. We relied on the respondent's 
information as submitted, except for adjustments to Olmue's fixed and 
variable overhead expenses due to calculation errors by the respondent. 
See Memorandum to Neal Harper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost 
of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results-Fruticola Olmue S.A.'' dated July 28, 2005.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    For Olmue, on a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted 
weighted-average COP to the comparison market sales of the foreign like 
product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in 
order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. 
The prices were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, 
movement expenses, direct selling expenses, commissions, indirect 
selling expenses, and packing expenses. In determining whether to 
disregard comparison market sales made at prices below the COP, we 
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 
whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time.
3. 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

[[Page 44891]]

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, for certain specific products, more than 
20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the 
COP, and 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 CV, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, when 
sales of comparison products could not be found, either because there 
were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable 
products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.
    In accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication 
for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A 
expenses, financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We made 
the same adjustments to the CV costs as described in the ``Calculation 
of COP'' section of this notice. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling expenses, GSec. A expenses, 
and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country.

E. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\2\ including selling 
functions,\3\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final 
user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have 
many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along 
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each 
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the 
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either comparison market or third country prices\4\), we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable 
to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the 
comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare 
the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Olmue

    Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in 
each market and claimed that its sales in both markets were at the same 
LOT. Therefore, Olmue did not request an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its 
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including 
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities 
performed. Olmue reported that it sold to end-users in the third 
country and to traders, distributors, retailers and end users in the 
United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar selling 
activities regardless of the customer category. Thus, we preliminarily 
find that Olmue sold at a single LOT in the comparison and U.S. 
markets.
    Moreover, sales in both markets were direct shipments to customers 
from the plant. Therefore, there were no differences in the channels of 
distribution between the two markets. Olmue also did not grant rebates 
or discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or 
incur advertising expenses in either the third country or U.S. market. 
Therefore, we preliminarily find that Olmue's sales in the comparison 
and U.S. markets were made at the same LOT.

SANCO

    SANCO reported a single LOT in the comparison and U.S. markets, and 
claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, 
SANCO did not request an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by SANCO regarding its 
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including 
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities 
performed. SANCO reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. 
market. In the U.S. market, channel one, the customer pays for the 
international freight. In the U.S. market, channel two, SANCO pays for 
the international freight. In both channels of distribution, SANCO is 
always responsible for the inland freight expenses to the port in 
Chile. Also, SANCO is always the importer of record and, therefore, 
pays all applicable customs duties. SANCO sells to the same customer 
types in both channels of distribution. Except for the differences 
regarding the payment of international freight, there are no 
differences in the selling activities for these two channels of 
distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is a single 
LOT in the U.S. market.
    SANCO has reported one channel of distribution for sales to its 
third country market. In this channel, SANCO's customer is the importer 
of record, and is responsible for all customs duties.

[[Page 44892]]

SANCO is responsible for the inland freight expenses to the port in 
Chile. The international freight is also paid by SANCO. Because SANCO 
has reported no variation in the selling activities for these sales, we 
preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in SANCO's third country 
market.
    Comparing sales in SANCO's two markets, there is no indication that 
there were significantly different selling activities or sales process 
activities. SANCO also did not grant rebates or discounts, provide 
technical services or post-sale warehousing, or incur advertising 
expenses on either U.S. or third country sales.
    Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both 
the U.S. and third country markets, and that SANCO's sales in the U.S. 
and third country markets were made at the same LOT.

VBM

    VBM reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market, and 
three channels of distribution in the home market. However, because the 
selling functions do not differ significantly between these channels, 
VBM is not claiming an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by VBM regarding its marketing 
processes for its home market and U.S. sales, including customer 
categories and the types and levels of selling activities performed. 
VBM reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market. In the 
U.S. market, channel one, VBM's product is transported from the 
processing plant to the cold storage warehouse before being transported 
to the port of shipment. In the U.S. market, channel two, VBM's sales 
are transported directly from the processing plant to the port for 
shipment. VBM reports that there are no pricing differences between 
these two channels of distribution. In both channels of distribution, 
VBM is always responsible for the inland freight to the port in Chile. 
VBM is also always the importer of record and, therefore, pays all 
applicable customs duties. VBM sells to the same types of customer in 
both channels of distribution. Except for small differences regarding 
transportation of the product from the processing plant to the cold 
storage warehouse, there are no differences in the selling activities 
for these two channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily 
find that there is a single LOT in the U.S. market.
    VBM has reported three channels of distribution for its home market 
sales. In the home market, channel one, VBM's product is transported 
from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and is picked 
up directly from the warehouse by the customer. In the home market, 
channel two, VBM's product is transported from the warehouse to the 
cold storage warehouse, and is then delivered by VBM to the customer. 
In the home market, channel three, VBM's product is picked up by the 
customer at the processing plant. Because VBM has not reported 
substantial differences in the selling activities for these three 
channels, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in VBM's 
home market.
    Comparing sales in VBM's two markets, there is no indication that 
there were significantly different selling activities or sales process 
activities. Although VBM did grant rebates for a few U.S. sales, it did 
not provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or incur 
advertising expenses on either U.S. or home market sales.
    Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both 
the U.S. and home markets, and that VBM's sales in the U.S. and home 
markets were made at the same LOT.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on FOB and C&F prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the comparison markets. We made adjustments for billing 
adjustments, where appropriate and, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses. 
These included domestic inland freight, pre-sale warehousing expenses, 
international freight, marine insurance, third country brokerage and 
handling, third country duties, and third country inland freight, where 
applicable. In addition, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses, and other direct 
selling expenses, where appropriate. For Olmue, we also made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for indirect selling expenses incurred 
in the comparison market or the United States where commissions were 
granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission 
offset), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs 
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the 
merchandise (the ``DIFMER'' adjustment), where applicable, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. To 
calculate NV, we relied upon the data submitted by the respondents.
    G.Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV 
for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we added 
U.S. packing costs.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of 
the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. 
sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping 
margins:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruticola Olmue, S.A................................   0.09 (de minimis)
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda......                0.00
Vital Berry, S.A....................................                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each 
respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative 
review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the 
final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on 
appropriate entries.
    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period 
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculate 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 total 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 apply the assessment rate to

[[Page 44893]]

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 do not have entered values, we 
calculate 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 the final results of 
this review.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of IQF red raspberries from Chile entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review, except if a 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 LTFV 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, the 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 of 
this merchandise, shall be 6.33 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in Notice of Amended final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile, 67 FR 40270 (June 12, 
2002).
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day 
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 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary 
results.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 28, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4190 Filed 8-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S