Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67440-67444 [05-22142]

Download as PDF 67440 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section Producer/Manufacturer/ Weighted–Average 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash Exporter Margin (Percent) deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed in the final results SVW .............................. 8.04 % of review (except where the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e., Disclosure less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit The Department will disclose will be required for that company); (2) calculations performed for these for previously investigated companies preliminary results to the parties within not listed above that have separate rate, five days of the date of publication of the cash deposit rate will continue to be this notice in accordance with 19 CFR the company–specific rate published for 351.224(b). Any interested party may the most recent period; (3) the cash request a hearing within 30 days of deposit rate for all other PRC exporters publication of these preliminary results. will be 97.86 percent, the current PRC– See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if wide rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate requested, will generally be held two for all non–PRC exporters will be the days after the scheduled date for rate applicable to the PRC exporter that submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 supplied that exporter. These deposit CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may requirements, when imposed, shall submit case briefs and/or written remain in effect until publication of the comments no later than 30 days after the final results of the next administrative date of publication of these preliminary review. results of review. See 19 CFR Notification to Importers 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited This notice also serves as a to issues raised in such briefs or preliminary reminder to importers of comments, may be filed no later than 37 their responsibility under 19 CFR days after the date of publication. See 19 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties the reimbursement of antidumping submitting written comments should duties prior to liquidation of the provide the Department with an relevant entries during this review additional copy of those comments on period. Failure to comply with this diskette. The Department will issue the requirement could result in the final results of this administrative Secretary’s presumption that review, which will include the results of reimbursement of antidumping duties its analysis of issues raised in any occurred and the subsequent assessment comments, and at a hearing, within 120 of double antidumping duties. days of publication of these preliminary We are issuing and publishing these results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) preliminary results of review in of the Act. accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the 351.221(b). Dated: October 31, 2005. Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all Joseph A. Spetrini, appropriate entries. Within 15 days of Acting Assistant Secretary for Import the completion of this review, the Administration. Department will instruct CBP to assess [FR Doc. 05–22143 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] antidumping duties on all appropriate BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE upon completion of this review. If these International Trade Administration preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against A–533–813 the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer’s/ Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of customer’s entries during the POR. Antidumping Duty Administrative Cash–Deposit Requirements Review The following cash–deposit AGENCY: Import Administration, requirements will be effective upon International Trade Administration, publication of the final results of this Department of Commerce. administrative review for all shipments SUMMARY: In response to timely requests of the subject merchandise entered, or by Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. (Agro withdrawn from warehouse, for POLYVINYL ALCOHOL FROM THE PRC VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Nov 04, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dutch) and the petitioner,1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India with respect to Agro Dutch. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (64 FR 8311). In response to timely requests by a manufacturer/exporter, Agro Dutch, and the petitioner, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to the following companies: Agro Dutch, Alpine Biotech Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. (Dinesh Agro), Flex Foods, Ltd. (Flex Foods), Himalya International, Ltd. (Himalya), KICM (Madras) Ltd. (KICM), Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. (Mandeep), Premier Mushroom Farms (Premier), Saptarishi Agro Industries Ltd. (Saptarishi Agro), Transchem Ltd. (Transchem), Techtran Agro Industries Limited (Techtran) and Weikfield Agro Products Ltd. (Weikfield) (70 FR 14643, March 23, 2005). The POR is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. On March 29, 2005, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the above–mentioned companies. We received responses to these questionnaires during the period May 1 The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices through June 2005 from Agro Dutch, Flex Foods, Premier, and Himalaya. In May 2005, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for review with respect to KICM, and in June 2005, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for review with respect to Alpine Biotech, Dinesh Agro, Flex Foods, Himalya, Mandeep, Premier, Saptarishi Agro, Transchem, Techtran and Weikfield. Accordingly, we published a Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 40982 (July 15, 2005), with respect to these companies. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Agro Dutch in August and October 2005, and received responses in September and October 2005. On September 29, 2005, the petitioner submitted comments with respect to the preliminary results calculations for Agro Dutch. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or ‘‘quick blanched mushrooms≥; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Nov 04, 2005 Jkt 208001 HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of certain preserved mushrooms by the respondents to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared export price (EP), as appropriate, to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted–average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondent 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. We compared Agro Dutch’s U.S. sales to sales made in the third– country market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: preservation method, container type, mushroom style, weight, container solution, and label type. Export Price We used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by Agro Dutch to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Agro Dutch reported its U.S. sales on an FOB Indian port, CIF or ex–dock duty paid basis. We made deductions PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 67441 from the starting price, where appropriate, for international freight, foreign inland freight, transportation insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402. Agro Dutch claimed a freight expense offset for some of the freight expenses associated with its export shipments to the United States and Israel, the third– country market. Although Agro Dutch has provided information that appears to show a direct correlation between expenses incurred and the offset payments made by the Indian government in this review, we did not make this adjustment because, as we stated in the previous review (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 10597, 10599 (March 4, 2005)), such an adjustment is not contemplated by the Act or the Department’s regulations. Specifically, the program described by Agro Dutch, granting an international freight subsidy from the Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority for the export of certain food products, is not contingent upon importation of inputs used to produce the exported subject merchandise – the duty drawback system contemplated under section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Neither is it packing (as contemplated under section 772(c)(1)(A) of the Act) nor the amount of any countervailing duty, as there is no companion countervailing duty investigation on certain preserved mushrooms from India (see section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act). Accordingly, we disregarded the claimed amounts. Agro Dutch reported that, in certain instances, it provided customers with a number of extra cardboard cartons to replace boxes that are damaged during shipment. The petitioners contend that these cartons are a free merchandise discount and that, in the absence of a reported value, the Department should deduct the reported packing cost from the gross unit price. According to our analysis, it is not clear whether the cost of these extra boxes is considered a selling expense, or whether it is already accounted for in Agro Dutch’s packing material cost. However, even if we were to consider the value of the boxes as a selling expense, the per–unit expense would be well under 0.33 percent ad valorem, the Department’s threshold under 19 CFR 351.413 for insignificant adjustments (see discussion and calculation in ‘‘Agro Dutch Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation,’’ Memorandum to the File dated October E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 67442 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 31, 2005). Therefore, we have disregarded any adjustment for these boxes, in accordance with section 777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.413. Normal Value 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 respondent’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We determined that the home market was not viable for Agro Dutch because Agro Dutch’s aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. However, we determined that the third–country market of Israel was viable, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we used third–country sales as a basis for NV for Agro Dutch. 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 or CEP. 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 (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 from the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain of distribution’’), including selling functions, 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 home market or third–country prices2), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. 2 Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses and profit for CV, where possible. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Nov 04, 2005 Jkt 208001 For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 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 or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, and where the difference affects price comparability, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. We obtained information from Agro Dutch regarding the marketing stages involved in sales to the reported comparison market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. Agro Dutch sold to importers/distributors through one channel of distribution in both the U.S. and Israeli markets. As described in its questionnaire response, Agro Dutch performs limited selling activities on behalf of its U.S. and third country sales. Furthermore, any selling activities performed (e.g., sales negotiation and transportation arrangement) do not vary by channel of distribution, type of customer, or market. Therefore, Agro Dutch’s sales channels are at the same LOT. Accordingly, all sales comparisons are at the same LOT for Agro Dutch and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not warranted. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed administrative review as of March 29, 2005, when the questionnaire was issued (i.e., the 2002–2003 review), we found that Agro Dutch had made sales below the cost of production. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 69 FR 51630 (August 20, 2004). Subsequently, the Department also disregarded certain sales made by Agro Dutch in the 2003– 2004 administrative review that were determined to be below the cost of PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 production (see Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 70 FR 37757, June 30, 2005). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Agro Dutch made sales in the third country at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. Accordingly, we instructed Agro Dutch to respond to the section D (Cost of Production) questionnaire. A. Calculation of Cost of Production We calculated the cost of production (COP) on a product–specific basis, based on the sum of Agro Dutch’s respective costs of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest expense, and all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition packed and ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the COP information submitted by Agro Dutch, except for the adjustments discussed below. 1. We revised the material costs for fresh mushrooms to account for our revaluation of work–in-process (WIP) inventory change. Agro Dutch’s reported fresh mushroom costs incorporated a WIP adjustment that included costs for items other than fresh mushrooms. Based on information in the responses, we revised the fresh mushroom growing cost to limit the WIP adjustment to fresh mushroom–related WIP changes. See ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,’’ Memorandum to Neal Halper from Trinette Ruffin and Sheikh M. Hannan dated October 31, 2005 (Preliminary Results COP Calculation Memo). 2. Agro Dutch calculated the general and administrative (G&A) and interest expense ratios using the cost of manufacture as the denominator. The Department’s practice, however, is to rely on the cost of goods sold (COGS) as the denominator in calculating these ratios. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12. We recalculated the G&A and interest expense ratios using COGS data derived from information in Agro Dutch’s responses. We also recalculated the net E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices interest expense ratio to include the foreign exchange loss on remittance and prepayment penalty on loans. See Preliminary Results COP Calculation Memo. On a product–specific basis, we compared Agro Dutch’s weighted– average COP to the prices of third country market sales of the foreign like product, as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of interest revenue, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing. In determining whether to disregard third country sales made at prices less than their 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 all costs within a reasonable period of time. B. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent’s sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below–cost sales of that product because we determined that the below–cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of the respondent’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below–cost sales because we determined that they represented ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time, and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. The results of our cost test for Agro Dutch indicated that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of home market or third country sales within an extended period of time were at prices below COP which would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below–cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV. Price–to-Price Comparisons We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold for VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Nov 04, 2005 Jkt 208001 consumption in the third country market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as EP, where possible, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Third country prices were based on FOB Indian port prices. We reduced the starting price for billing adjustments and movement expenses, and increased the starting price for interest revenue, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(c) and (e). We disregarded Agro Dutch’s claimed freight expense offset for certain third country sales granted under the Indian government program discussed in the ‘‘Export Price’’ section above, because this type of adjustment to NV is not contemplated by section 773(a)(6) of the Act or the Department’s regulations. We also reduced the starting price for packing costs incurred in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and increased NV to account for U.S. packing expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made circumstance–of-sale adjustments for credit expenses and bank fees, where appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. Calculation of Constructed Value We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which states that CV shall be based on the sum of the respondent’s cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the submitted CV information except for the adjustments described above under ‘‘Calculation of Cost of Production.’’ Price–to-Constructed Value Comparisons We based NV on CV for comparison to certain U.S. sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For comparisons to Agro Dutch’s EP sales, we made circumstance–of-sale adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted–average direct selling expenses of Agro Dutch’s above–cost third country sales, and adding to CV the U.S. direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 67443 Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted–average dumping margin for the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005, is as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd Percent Margin 1.59 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be scheduled after determination of the briefing schedule. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B–099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party’s name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be determined. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 67444 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. With respect to Agro Dutch, we intend to calculate importer–specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer–specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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. 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. Dated: October 31, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 05–22142 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 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 rate for the reviewed company will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less–than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.30 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made effective by the LTFV investigation (see Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India, 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 1999)). These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Nov 04, 2005 Jkt 208001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–580–813 Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Sungkwang Bend Company Ltd. (SKBC), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings from Korea. The review covers one firm, SKBC. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that sales of stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings from Korea have not been made below normal value (NV) for SKBC. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to not assess antidumping duties based on the difference between constructed export price (CEP) and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to also submit: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 23, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings from Korea. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Korea, 58 FR 11029 (February 23, 1993). On February 28, 2005, SKBC requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt- weld pipe fittings from Korea in response to the Department’s notice of opportunity to request a review published in the Federal Register. The Department initiated the review for SKBC on March 23, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On March 31, 2005, the Department issued sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire to SKBC. SKBC filed its response to section A of our questionnaire on May 9, 2005. On May 27, 2005, SKBC filed its response to sections B and C of our questionnaire. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to SKBC on July 25, 2005. SKBC filed its response to this questionnaire on August 16, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain welded stainless steel butt– weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings), whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches in inside diameter. Pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise can be used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system: (1) corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high temperatures are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; (5) high pressures are contained within the system. Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, and the following five are the most basic: ‘‘elbows,’’ ‘‘tees,’’ ‘‘reducers,’’ ‘‘stub ends,’’ and ‘‘caps.’’ The edges of finished fittings are E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67440-67444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-813


Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. 
(Agro Dutch) and the petitioner,\1\ the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India with respect to 
Agro Dutch. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2004, through 
January 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom 
Trade which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, 
Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, and Sunny 
Dell Foods, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4136 or (202) 482-3773, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on 
certain preserved mushrooms from India (64 FR 8311).
    In response to timely requests by a manufacturer/exporter, Agro 
Dutch, and the petitioner, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review with respect to the following 
companies: Agro Dutch, Alpine Biotech Ltd. (Alpine Biotech), Dinesh 
Agro Products, Ltd. (Dinesh Agro), Flex Foods, Ltd. (Flex Foods), 
Himalya International, Ltd. (Himalya), KICM (Madras) Ltd. (KICM), 
Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. (Mandeep), Premier Mushroom Farms (Premier), 
Saptarishi Agro Industries Ltd. (Saptarishi Agro), Transchem Ltd. 
(Transchem), Techtran Agro Industries Limited (Techtran) and Weikfield 
Agro Products Ltd. (Weikfield) (70 FR 14643, March 23, 2005). The POR 
is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005.
    On March 29, 2005, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the above-mentioned companies. We received responses 
to these questionnaires during the period May

[[Page 67441]]

through June 2005 from Agro Dutch, Flex Foods, Premier, and Himalaya.
    In May 2005, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for review 
with respect to KICM, and in June 2005, the petitioner timely withdrew 
its request for review with respect to Alpine Biotech, Dinesh Agro, 
Flex Foods, Himalya, Mandeep, Premier, Saptarishi Agro, Transchem, 
Techtran and Weikfield. Accordingly, we published a Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 40982 (July 
15, 2005), with respect to these companies.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Agro Dutch in August and 
October 2005, and received responses in September and October 2005.
    On September 29, 2005, the petitioner submitted comments with 
respect to the preliminary results calculations for Agro Dutch.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus 
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Preserved mushrooms'' refer to 
mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, 
and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and 
heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in 
a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, 
butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, 
sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of 
this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in 
a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further 
processing.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All 
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and 
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched 
mushrooms; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and 
(5) ``marinated,'' ``acidified'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 
2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of this order dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain preserved mushrooms by the 
respondents to the United States were made at less than normal value 
(NV), we compared export price (EP), as appropriate, to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions 
to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were 
sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost 
of Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent 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. 
We compared Agro Dutch's U.S. sales to sales made in the third-country 
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from 
three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison 
market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order: 
preservation method, container type, mushroom style, weight, container 
solution, and label type.

Export Price

    We used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by Agro Dutch to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not 
otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States.
    Agro Dutch reported its U.S. sales on an FOB Indian port, CIF or 
ex-dock duty paid basis. We made deductions from the starting price, 
where appropriate, for international freight, foreign inland freight, 
transportation insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, and 
U.S. duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402.
    Agro Dutch claimed a freight expense offset for some of the freight 
expenses associated with its export shipments to the United States and 
Israel, the third-country market. Although Agro Dutch has provided 
information that appears to show a direct correlation between expenses 
incurred and the offset payments made by the Indian government in this 
review, we did not make this adjustment because, as we stated in the 
previous review (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 
10597, 10599 (March 4, 2005)), such an adjustment is not contemplated 
by the Act or the Department's regulations. Specifically, the program 
described by Agro Dutch, granting an international freight subsidy from 
the Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development 
Authority for the export of certain food products, is not contingent 
upon importation of inputs used to produce the exported subject 
merchandise - the duty drawback system contemplated under section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Neither is it packing (as contemplated under 
section 772(c)(1)(A) of the Act) nor the amount of any countervailing 
duty, as there is no companion countervailing duty investigation on 
certain preserved mushrooms from India (see section 772(c)(1)(C) of the 
Act). Accordingly, we disregarded the claimed amounts.
    Agro Dutch reported that, in certain instances, it provided 
customers with a number of extra cardboard cartons to replace boxes 
that are damaged during shipment. The petitioners contend that these 
cartons are a free merchandise discount and that, in the absence of a 
reported value, the Department should deduct the reported packing cost 
from the gross unit price. According to our analysis, it is not clear 
whether the cost of these extra boxes is considered a selling expense, 
or whether it is already accounted for in Agro Dutch's packing material 
cost. However, even if we were to consider the value of the boxes as a 
selling expense, the per-unit expense would be well under 0.33 percent 
ad valorem, the Department's threshold under 19 CFR 351.413 for 
insignificant adjustments (see discussion and calculation in ``Agro 
Dutch Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation,'' Memorandum to 
the File dated October

[[Page 67442]]

31, 2005). Therefore, we have disregarded any adjustment for these 
boxes, in accordance with section 777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.413.

Normal Value

    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 respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    We determined that the home market was not viable for Agro Dutch 
because Agro Dutch's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was less than five percent of its aggregate volume 
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. However, we determined that 
the third-country market of Israel was viable, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we used third-country sales as a basis for NV 
for Agro Dutch.

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 or CEP. 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 
(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 from the U.S. sales, we reviewed the 
distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of 
distribution''), including selling functions, 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 home market or third-country prices\2\), we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only 
the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine 
the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive 
selling expenses and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at 
a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, and where the difference affects price comparability, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than 
the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability 
(i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
    We obtained information from Agro Dutch regarding the marketing 
stages involved in sales to the reported comparison market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for 
each channel of distribution. Agro Dutch sold to importers/distributors 
through one channel of distribution in both the U.S. and Israeli 
markets. As described in its questionnaire response, Agro Dutch 
performs limited selling activities on behalf of its U.S. and third 
country sales. Furthermore, any selling activities performed (e.g., 
sales negotiation and transportation arrangement) do not vary by 
channel of distribution, type of customer, or market. Therefore, Agro 
Dutch's sales channels are at the same LOT. Accordingly, all sales 
comparisons are at the same LOT for Agro Dutch and an adjustment 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed administrative review as of March 
29, 2005, when the questionnaire was issued (i.e., the 2002-2003 
review), we found that Agro Dutch had made sales below the cost of 
production. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 69 FR 
51630 (August 20, 2004). Subsequently, the Department also disregarded 
certain sales made by Agro Dutch in the 2003-2004 administrative review 
that were determined to be below the cost of production (see Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from India, 70 FR 37757, June 30, 2005). Thus, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Agro Dutch made sales in 
the third country at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise 
in the current review period. Accordingly, we instructed Agro Dutch to 
respond to the section D (Cost of Production) questionnaire.
A. Calculation of Cost of Production
    We calculated the cost of production (COP) on a product-specific 
basis, based on the sum of Agro Dutch's respective costs of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest expense, and all 
expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in a condition 
packed and ready for shipment in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of 
the Act.
    We relied on the COP information submitted by Agro Dutch, except 
for the adjustments discussed below.
    1. We revised the material costs for fresh mushrooms to account for 
our revaluation of work-in-process (WIP) inventory change. Agro Dutch's 
reported fresh mushroom costs incorporated a WIP adjustment that 
included costs for items other than fresh mushrooms. Based on 
information in the responses, we revised the fresh mushroom growing 
cost to limit the WIP adjustment to fresh mushroom-related WIP changes. 
See ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments 
for the Preliminary Results,'' Memorandum to Neal Halper from Trinette 
Ruffin and Sheikh M. Hannan dated October 31, 2005 (Preliminary Results 
COP Calculation Memo).
    2. Agro Dutch calculated the general and administrative (G&A) and 
interest expense ratios using the cost of manufacture as the 
denominator. The Department's practice, however, is to rely on the cost 
of goods sold (COGS) as the denominator in calculating these ratios. 
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 
(December 23, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 12. We recalculated the G&A and interest expense ratios using 
COGS data derived from information in Agro Dutch's responses. We also 
recalculated the net

[[Page 67443]]

interest expense ratio to include the foreign exchange loss on 
remittance and prepayment penalty on loans. See Preliminary Results COP 
Calculation Memo.
    On a product-specific basis, we compared Agro Dutch's weighted-
average COP to the prices of third country market sales of the foreign 
like product, as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. For 
purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and 
packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of interest revenue, where 
appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, 
movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and 
packing. In determining whether to disregard third country sales made 
at prices less than their 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 all costs within a 
reasonable period of time.
B. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because we 
determined that they represented ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time, and were at prices which would not permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    The results of our cost test for Agro Dutch indicated that, for 
certain products, more than 20 percent of home market or third country 
sales within an extended period of time were at prices below COP which 
would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-
cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis 
for determining NV.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first 
sold for consumption in the third country market, in the usual 
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the 
same LOT as EP, where possible, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) 
of the Act.
    Third country prices were based on FOB Indian port prices. We 
reduced the starting price for billing adjustments and movement 
expenses, and increased the starting price for interest revenue, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.401(c) and (e).
    We disregarded Agro Dutch's claimed freight expense offset for 
certain third country sales granted under the Indian government program 
discussed in the ``Export Price'' section above, because this type of 
adjustment to NV is not contemplated by section 773(a)(6) of the Act or 
the Department's regulations.
    We also reduced the starting price for packing costs incurred in 
the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of 
the Act, and increased NV to account for U.S. packing expenses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments for credit expenses and bank fees, where 
appropriate, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.410. In addition, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, 
for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Calculation of Constructed Value

    We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, 
which states that CV shall be based on the sum of the respondent's cost 
of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts 
for SG&A expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the 
submitted CV information except for the adjustments described above 
under ``Calculation of Cost of Production.''

Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons

    We based NV on CV for comparison to certain U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For comparisons to Agro 
Dutch's EP sales, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting 
from CV the weighted-average direct selling expenses of Agro Dutch's 
above-cost third country sales, and adding to CV the U.S. direct 
selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.410.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for the period February 1, 2004, 
through January 31, 2005, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd...............................                1.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be scheduled after determination of the 
briefing schedule.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and 
rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case 
briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be 
determined. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. 
The Department will issue appropriate appraisement

[[Page 67444]]

instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 
within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review.
    With respect to Agro Dutch, we intend to calculate importer-
specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating 
the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and 
dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined. 
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis 
(i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.

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 rate for the reviewed 
company will be that established in the final results of this review, 
except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis 
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 
deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 11.30 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by 
the LTFV investigation (see Notice of Amendment of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From India, 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 1999)). These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

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.
    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.

    Dated: October 31, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-22142 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S