Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 44490-44495 [E7-15489]
Download as PDF
44490
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Notices
I. Abstract
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The technical data letters of
explanation will assure BIS that U.S.origin technical data will be exported
only for authorized end-uses, users and
destinations. The letters also places the
foreign consignee on notice that the
technical data is subject to U.S. export
controls and may only be reexported in
accordance with U.S. law.
International Trade Administration
II. Method of Collection
Submitted on paper or electronically.
III. Data
OMB Number: 0694–0047.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households, business or other for-profit
organizations, and not-for-profit
institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
5,050.
Estimated Time Per Response: 30
minutes to 2 hours, depending on the
required document.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 8,807.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.
IV. Request for Comments
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology. In addition, the public is
encouraged to provide suggestions on
how to reduce and/or consolidate the
current frequency of reporting.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they will also become a matter of public
record.
Dated: August 2, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–15398 Filed 8–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:14 Aug 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
[A–549–813]
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely
requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on canned
pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand for
the period of review (POR) July 1, 2005
through June 30, 2006. The review
covers two respondents, Vita Food
Factory (1989) Ltd. (Vita) and Tropical
Food Industries Co. Ltd. (Trofco). The
domestic interested party for this
proceeding is Maui Pineapple Company
Ltd. (petitioner).
The Department preliminarily
determines that Vita and Trofco made
sales to the United States at less than
normal value (NV). If these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results
of this administrative review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on entries of Vita’s and Trofco’s
merchandise during the POR. The
preliminary results are listed below in
the section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results
of Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Myrna Lobo or Douglas Kirby, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482–
3782, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping duty order on CPF from
Thailand on July 18, 1995. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended
Final Determination: Canned Pineapple
Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR 36775 (July
18, 1995) (Antidumping Duty Order). On
July 3, 2006, the Department published
in the Federal Register a notice of
‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review’’ of the antidumping duty order
on CPF from Thailand. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 71 FR 37890
(July 3, 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Department received a request for
review from Vita, by the July 31, 2006
deadline and therefore, on August 30,
2006, the Department published in the
Federal Register the notice of initiation
of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on CPF from
Thailand for Vita. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573
(August 30, 2006).
Trofco also submitted a request for
review, but Trofco’s review request was
not received by the Department until
after the deadline for requesting an
administrative review. However, the
record of this proceeding shows that if
not for an error by the express delivery
service, Trofco’s review request would
have been received by the Department
on or before the July 31, 2006 deadline.
Therefore, on October 10, 2006 the
Department initiated a review for
Trofco. For further discussion on this
issue, see Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Canned
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 71 FR
59430 (October 10, 2006).
On August 14, 2006, the Department
issued sections A through E of the
questionnaire to Vita.1 Vita submitted
its section A response on September 12,
2006, and submitted its sections B
through D response on September 27,
2006. The Department issued a sections
A through D supplemental
questionnaire on February 6, 2007, and
Vita responded on February 20, 2007.
On April 13, 2007, the Department
issued a second sections A through D
supplemental questionnaire to Vita; Vita
responded on April 25, 2007. Finally,
on May 18, 2007, the Department issued
a third sections A through D
supplemental questionnaire to Vita, and
Vita responded on May 30, 2007.
On October 12, 2006, the Department
issued sections A through E of the
questionnaire to Trofco. Trofco
submitted its section A questionnaire
response on October 17, 2006, and
submitted its responses to sections B
and C on November 15, 2006. The
Department issued a sections A through
C supplemental questionnaire on
1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company’s corporate
structure and business practices, the merchandise
under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Section B requests a complete listing of all home
market sales, or, if the home market is not viable,
of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market (this section is not applicable to respondents
in non-market economy cases). Section C requests
a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests
information on the cost of production of the foreign
like product and the constructed value of the
merchandise under investigation. Section E
requests information on further manufacturing.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
January 29, 2007, and Trofco responded
on February 12, 2007. On May 18, 2007
the Department issued a second sections
A through C supplemental
questionnaire and Trofco responded on
May 24, 2007.
On November 27, 2006 the petitioner
filed an allegation of sales below the
cost of production for Trofco. On
December 14, 2006 the Department
initiated a cost investigation. Trofco
submitted its section D response on
December 28, 2006. See ‘‘Cost of
Production Analysis’’ infra for further
discussion. On January 31, 2006, the
Department issued a section D
supplemental questionnaire to Trofco.
Trofco responded on February 20, 2007.
On March 26, 2007 the Department
issued a second section D supplemental
questionnaire, and Trofco responded on
April 4, 2007. A third and fourth section
D supplemental questionnaire were
issued on May 2 and May 16, 2007,
respectively, and Trofco submitted its
responses on May 10 and May 22, 2007.
On November 15, 2006, the petitioner
submitted deficiency comments on
sections A through D of Vita’s
questionnaire responses. On November
21, 2006, the petitioner submitted
deficiency comments on Trofco’s
section A questionnaire response. On
January 18, 2007, and April 12, 2007,
respectively, the petitioner submitted
deficiency comments and a rebuttal to
Trofco’s section D questionnaire
responses. See Cost of Production
Analysis infra for further discussion.
On March 30, 2007, the Department,
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),
extended the deadline for the
preliminary results of this antidumping
duty administrative review by 120 days
from April 2, 2007 until no later than
July 31, 2007. See Canned Pineapple
Fruit from Thailand: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 15101 (March 30, 2007).
Verification
On March 27, 2007, the petitioner
submitted a timely letter requesting that
the Department conduct verification of
Vita’s and Trofco’s questionnaire
responses pursuant to section
782(i)(3)(A) of the Act. The Department
intends to conduct a sales and cost
verification of Vita and a sales
verification of Trofco following the
preliminary results of this review. From
June 20 through June 26, 2007, the
Department conducted a cost
verification of Trofco. For the results
and analysis of Trofco’s cost
verification, see Memorandum from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:14 Aug 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Ernest Z. Gziryan, Senior Accountant to
Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of
Accounting, Verification of the Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Data
Submitted by Tropical Food Industries
Co. Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Canned
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand (Trofco
Cost Verification Report) (July 31, 2007)
on file in room B–099, the Central
Records Unit of the main Commerce
building (CRU).
Period of Review
This review covers the period July 1,
2005 through June 30, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
CPF, defined as pineapple processed
and/or prepared into various product
forms, including rings, pieces, chunks,
tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is
packed and cooked in metal cans with
either pineapple juice or sugar syrup
added. CPF is currently classifiable
under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and
2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). HTSUS 2008.20.0010
covers CPF packed in a sugar–based
syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF
packed without added sugar (i.e., juice–
packed). Although these HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and for customs purposes,
the written description of the scope is
dispositive. There have been no scope
rulings for the subject order.
Less than Fair Value Analysis
To determine whether sales of subject
merchandise to the United States were
made at less than NV, we compared the
export price (EP) to NV, as described in
the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice in accordance
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16)(A)
of the Act, we considered all products
produced by respondents that are
covered by the description in the
‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above,
and that were sold in the comparison
market during the POR, to be foreign
like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance
with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the
Act, where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the
comparison market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the
most similar foreign like product on the
basis of the characteristics listed in
Appendix V of the Department’s
antidumping questionnaires.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44491
Date of Sale
It is the Department’s practice to use
invoice date as the date of sale.
However, 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that
the Secretary may use a date other than
the invoice date if the Secretary is
satisfied that the material terms of the
sale were established on some other
date. See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.
v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 2d 207,
217–219 (CIT 2000). Both Vita and
Trofco reported invoice date as the date
of sale for all sales in both the
comparison and U.S. markets. After
analyzing the responses of both parties
and the sample sales documents
provided, we preliminarily determine
that invoice date is the appropriate date
of sale for all sales under review.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we use EP when the subject
merchandise was first sold (or agreed to
be sold) before the date of importation
by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside of the
United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States, and constructed
export price (CEP) was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. As
discussed below, we conclude that all of
Vita’s and Trofco’s U.S. sales are EP
sales.
Vita: Vita identified all of its U.S.
sales as EP sales in its questionnaire
responses. The Department based the
price of each of Vita’s U.S. sales of
subject merchandise on EP, as defined
in section 772(a) of the Act, because the
merchandise was sold, prior to
importation, to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States, or to unaffiliated
purchasers for exportation to the United
States and the use of CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record. In accordance with
section 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated EP using the prices Vita
charged for packed subject merchandise
shipped FOB. We made deductions for
movement expenses, including, where
applicable, charges for transportation,
terminal handling, container stuffing,
bill of lading preparation, customs
clearance, and legal and port fees
documentation. See Analysis
Memorandum for Vita Food Factory
(1989) Co., Ltd., (Vita Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum) dated
concurrently with this notice. Vita
reported post–sale, post–POR price
adjustments in its September 12, 2006,
section A questionnaire response. In
addition, Vita explained that the
company did not revise its sales
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
44492
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Notices
contracts and other related sales
documents for these reported post–sale
billing adjustments. The Department
asked in a supplemental questionnaire
to Vita why no revisions to the sales
documentation were made for the
reported post–sale billing adjustments.
Vita explained that it is its normal
practice to make post–sale billing
adjustments through discussions by
telephone with its customers without
revisions to sales documentation. See
Vita 1st Supplemental Questionnaire at
9. Because Vita was unable to provide
any documentation demonstrating that
there were actual price adjustments, we
did not make any adjustments to EP for
these claimed post–sale price
adjustments. See Corus Engineering
Steels Ltd. v. United States, (Slip Op.
2003–110, 2003 CIT Lexis 110) (CIT
August 27, 2003) at 11 (‘‘The burden of
proof is upon the claimant to prove
entitlement.’’). Moreover, Vita reported
similar post–sale billing adjustments in
the most recent review and the
Department did not include these
adjustments in the calculation of EP.
See Canned Pineapple Fruit from
Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review (10th Review Preliminary
Results) 71 FR 44256, 44258 (August 4,
2006), unchanged in Canned Pineapple
Fruit from Thailand: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, (10th Review
Final Results) 71 FR 70948 (December 7,
2006) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Trofco: Trofco identified all of its U.S.
sales as EP sales in its questionnaire
responses. The Department based the
price of each of Trofco’s U.S. sales of
subject merchandise on EP, as defined
in section 772(a) of the Act, because the
merchandise was sold, prior to
importation, to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States, or to unaffiliated
purchasers for exportation to the United
States and the use of CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record. In accordance with
sections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated EP using the prices Trofco
charged for packed subject merchandise
shipped FOB, from which we made
deductions for movement expenses,
including, where applicable, charges for
transportation, terminal handling,
container stuffing, bill of lading
preparation, Customs clearance, and
legal and port fees documentation. See
Analysis Memorandum for Tropical
Food Industries Co, Ltd., (Trofco
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum)
dated concurrently with this notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:14 Aug 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Normal Value
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based
NV on the price at which the foreign
like product was first sold for
consumption in the comparison market,
in the usual commercial quantities, in
the ordinary course of trade, and, to the
extent practicable, at the same level of
trade (LOT) as the EP sale. See ‘‘Level
of Trade’’ section below. After testing
comparison market viability and
whether comparison market sales were
at below–cost prices, we calculated NV
for Vita and Trofco as discussed in the
following sections.
Home Market Viability
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(C) 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 (i.e., the aggregate
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product normally should be
greater than or equal to five percent of
the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product
to the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales
of subject merchandise. See also 19 CFR
351.404(b).
Vita: Because the aggregate volume of
Vita’s home market sales of foreign like
product is less than five percent of the
aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of
subject merchandise, we based NV on
sales of the foreign like product in a
country other than Vita’s home market.
See section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.
Specifically, we based NV for Vita on
sales of the foreign like product in
Germany. The Department selected
Germany because sales to Vita’s largest
third–country market (the Netherlands)
were largely trans–shipments to
ultimate customers located in Germany.
In addition, the product similarity for
CPF sold to Germany and to the U.S.
was superior vis–a-vis the product
similarity for the Netherlands and the
United States. See ‘‘Cost of Production
Analysis’’ infra for further discussion.
Trofco: Trofco’s home market sales
were greater than five percent as
compared to the aggregate volume of
U.S. sales during the POR. Therefore,
Trofco’s volume of sales in the home
market during the POR was sufficient to
serve as a viable basis for calculating
NV.
Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
Vita: In the most recently completed
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on CPF from
Thailand, the Department determined
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that Vita sold foreign–like product in its
comparison market at prices below the
cost of producing the product and
excluded such sales from the
calculation of NV. See 10th Review
Preliminary Results and 10th Review
Final Results. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,
the Department determined that there
are reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that during the current POR,
Vita sold the foreign like product at
prices below the cost of producing the
product and instituted a below cost
inquiry as to Vita’s sales in the
comparison market.2 Compare Top–ofthe–Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary
Results and Rescission, in Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 67 FR 62951, 62954 (October 9,
2002) (unchanged in final results 68 FR
7503 ) with Top–of-the–Stove Stainless
Steel Cooking Ware From Korea:
Preliminary Results and Rescission, in
Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 11259,
11263–64 (February 23, 2001)
(unchanged in final results 66 FR 45664
) for an example where the Department
instituted a below cost inquiry under
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act based
on a below cost finding in the most
recently completed administrative
review and the recently completed
administrative review was based on a
different comparison market than the
on–going administrative review.
Trofco: On November 27, 2007,
petitioner alleged that Trofco made
home market sales of CPF at prices
below the cost of production during the
POR. The Department found a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that Trofco’s sales in Thailand were at
prices below the COP and accordingly
initiated a cost investigation for the
current review. See Memorandum to
Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, from The Team on
Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below
the Cost of Production for Tropical Food
Industries Co., Ltd, (December 14, 2006).
We relied on the COP data submitted by
Trofco in its cost questionnaire
responses with the following
exceptions: (1) We revised the reported
net realizable values (‘‘NRV’’) which
Trofco used to allocate pineapple fruit
cost to pineapple solid and pineapple
juice products to account for the
separately identifiable costs incurred to
produce each product; (2) we revised
2 In addition, the Department notes that on May
15, 2007, petitioner submitted a request that a cost
investigation be initiated by the Department with
respect to sales of CPF by Vita to Germany during
the POR.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Notices
the reported financial expense rate to
include the net foreign exchange gains
and losses; and (3) we adjusted the cost
of sales denominator used to calculate
the general and administrative and
financial expense rates to remove
packing expenses. Our revisions to
Trofco’s COP data are discussed in the
Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan,
Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper,
Director, Office of Accounting, entitled
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice.
Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
We compared sales of the foreign like
product in the home market with
model–specific COP figures in the POR.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of
the Act, we calculated COP based on the
sum of the costs of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the
foreign like product, plus selling,
general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses, and financial expenses and
packing. In our sales–below-cost
analysis, we used comparison market
sales and COP information provided by
Vita and Trofco in their questionnaire
responses. See Vita’s September 27,
2006 section D questionnaire response;
see also Trofco’s December 28, 2007
section D questionnaire response.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Results of COP Test
We compared the weighted–average
COPs to comparison market sales of the
foreign–like product, consistent with
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to
determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP. See also
19 CFR 351.404(b). In determining
whether to disregard comparison market
sales made at prices below the COP, we
examined whether such sales were
made (1) Within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities, and (2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of
time in the normal course of trade, in
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A)
and (B) of the Act.3 On a product–
specific basis, we compared the COP to
comparison market prices, less any
movement charges, discounts and
rebates, and direct and indirect selling
3 Section 773(b)(2)(ii)(B-C) of the Act defines
extended period of time as a period that is normally
1 year, but not less than 6 months, and substantial
quantities as sales made at prices below the cost of
production that have been made in substantial
quantities if (i) The volume of such sales represents
20 percent or more of the volume of sales under
consideration for the determination of normal
value, or (ii) the weighted average per unit price of
the sales under consideration for the determination
of normal value is less than the weighted average
per unit cost of production for such sales.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:14 Aug 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
expenses. See Treatment of Adjustments
and Selling Expenses in Calculating the
Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’) and
Constructed Value (‘‘CV’’) Import Policy
Bulletin (March 25, 1994) on file in the
CRU, which can also be accessed
directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
Act, where less than 20 percent of a
respondent’s sales of a given model
were at prices less than the COP, we did
not disregard any below–cost sales of
that model because the below–cost sales
were not made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time.
Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent’s sales of a given model
were at prices less than the COP, we
disregarded the below–cost sales when:
(1) They were made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of
time, in accordance with sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and; (2)
based on our comparison of prices to
average COPs in the POR, we
determined that the below–cost prices
would not permit the recovery of costs
within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
Price–to-Price Comparisons
For those product comparisons for
which there were comparison market
sales of like product in the ordinary
course of trade, we based NV on
comparison market prices to affiliated
(when made at prices determined to be
arms–length) or unaffiliated parties, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A)
and (B) of the Act. We made
adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise,
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of
the Act and 19 CRF 351.411 as well as
for differences in direct selling
expenses, in accordance with
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We relied on our model match
criteria in order to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison
sales of the foreign like product based
on the reported physical characteristics
of the subject merchandise. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise
in the comparison market to compare to
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to
the next most similar foreign like
product on the basis of the
characteristics and reporting
instructions listed in the Department’s
questionnaire. See section 771(16) of the
Act.
Vita: When comparing Vita
comparison market sales to its EP sales,
the Department calculated Vita’s NV
(shipped FOB, CNF or FAS) NV based
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44493
on its gross unit price in Germany to
unaffiliated customers. Pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we
made deductions for movement
expenses (i.e., inland freight, ocean
freight and warehousing), when
appropriate. In accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we
deducted comparison market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs. In
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we
deducted comparison market direct
selling expenses (i.e., credit, warranty)
and added U.S. direct selling expenses.
We made the appropriate adjustment for
commissions paid in the home market
pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We made
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses
incurred on comparison market or U.S.
sales where commissions were granted
on sales in one market but not in the
other, the ‘‘commission offset.’’
Specifically, where commissions are
incurred in one market, but not in the
other, we will limit the amount of such
allowance to the amount of either the
selling expenses incurred in the one
market or the commissions allowed in
the other market, whichever is less.
Trofco: The Department calculated
Trofco’s NV based on its gross unit price
to unaffiliated customers less billing
adjustments pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we
made deductions for movement
expenses (i.e., inland freight and
warehousing), when appropriate. In
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act, we deducted
comparison market packing costs and
added U.S. packing costs. In accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we deducted
comparison market direct selling
expenses (i.e., credit) and added U.S.
direct selling expenses. We made the
appropriate adjustment for commissions
paid in the home market pursuant to
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and19 CFR
351.410(c). We made adjustments, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for
indirect selling expenses incurred on
comparison market or U.S. sales where
commissions were granted on sales in
one market but not in the other, the
‘‘commission offset.’’ Specifically,
where commissions are incurred in one
market, but not in the other, we will
limit the amount of such allowance to
the amount of either the selling
expenses incurred in the one market or
the commissions allowed in the other
market, whichever is less.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
44494
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Notices
Price to Constructed Value
Comparisons
In accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act, we used constructed value
(CV) as the basis for NV when we could
not determine NV because there were no
above–cost contemporaneous sales of
identical or similar merchandise in the
comparison market. We calculated CV
in accordance with section 773(e) of the
Act, including the cost of materials and
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit.
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)
of the Act, we based SG&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 comparison market.
Where NV is based on CV, we determine
the NV LOT based on the LOT of the
sales from which we derive selling
expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit for
CV, where possible.
Vita: We used CV as the basis for NV
for sales in which there were no usable
contemporaneous sales of the foreign
like product in the comparison market,
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of
the Act. We calculated CV in
accordance with section 773(e) of the
Act. We added reported materials, labor,
and factory overhead costs to derive the
cost of manufacture (COM), in
accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the
Act. We then added interest expenses,
SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S.
packing expenses to derive the CV (and
added U.S. credit expenses for
comparison to EP), in accordance with
sections 773(e)(2) and (3) of the Act. We
calculated profit based on the total
value of sales and total COP reported by
Vita in its questionnaire response, in
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of
the Act. Finally, we deducted
comparison market credit expenses from
CV and added U.S. credit to calculate
the foreign unit price in dollars
(FUPDOL), pursuant to section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
Trofco: We used CV as the basis for
NV for sales in which there were no
usable contemporaneous sales of the
foreign like product in the comparison
market, in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV
in accordance with section 773(e) of the
Act. We added reported materials, labor,
and factory overhead costs, adjusted as
shown in the COP Analysis section
above, to derive the cost of manufacture
(COM), in accordance with section
773(e)(1) of the Act. We then added
interest expenses adjusted as shown in
the COP Analysis section above, SG&A
expenses adjusted as shown in the COP
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:14 Aug 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Analysis section above, profit, and U.S.
packing expenses to derive the CV, in
accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and
(3) of the Act.
Based on the information currently on
the record, all of Trofco’s sales in
Thailand failed the COP test and
therefore were outside the ordinary
course of trade; hence, we cannot
determine selling expenses or profit
under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
Section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act sets forth
three alternatives: (i) Selling expense
and profit may be calculated based on
‘‘actual amounts incurred by the
specific exporter or producer of
merchandise in the same general
category’’ as subject merchandise; (ii)
may be calculated based on ‘‘the
weighted average of the actual amounts
incurred and realized by {other}
exporters or producers that are subject
to the investigation’’; or (iii) ‘‘any other
reasonable method,’’ with limits on the
‘‘profit cap.’’
For this review, the Department is
calculating CV profit based on the
amounts earned by Trofco on its home
market sales of canned fruit other than
pineapple (i.e., profit on sales of the
same general category of merchandise as
subject canned pineapple fruit under
section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act). For
selling expenses, we cannot use
alternative (i) because we do not have
the information on Trofco’s other
canned fruit sales (other than pineapple)
which we consider to be in the same
general category of merchandise as
subject canned pineapple fruit. In
addition, we cannot use alternative (ii)
without violating our responsibility to
protect respondent’s administrative
protective order (APO) information,
because Vita is the only other
respondent in this review. Therefore, for
selling expenses, we are using
alternative (iii) ’any other reasonable
method;’ and basing Trofco’s CV selling
expenses on its reported home market
sales. Therefore, we deducted home
market credit expenses from CV and
added U.S. credit to calculate the
foreign unit price in dollars (FUPDOL),
pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of
the Act.
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 LOT as the EP or CEP
sale. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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) (South African Plate Final). 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),4 including selling
functions,5 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), we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments.
With respect to CEP sales, the
Department removes the selling
activities set forth in section 772(d) of
the Act from the CEP starting price prior
to performing its LOT analysis. See
Micron Technology, Inc. v. United
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir.
2001). As such, for CEP sales, the U.S.
LOT is based on the starting price of the
sales, as adjusted under section 772(d)
of the Act.
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 sale,
the Department may compare the U.S.
sale to sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market. However, in this
case, the Department preliminarily
determines that no level of trade
adjustment was necessary for Trofco
and Vita, consistent with what the
parties reported in their respective
questionnaire responses. For further
details on the Department’s LOT
analysis, see Vita Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum and Trofco Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
In accordance with section 773A of
the Act, we made currency conversions
4 The marketing process in the United States and
in the comparison markets begins with the producer
and extends to the sale to the final user or
consumer. 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
the narrative responses of each respondent to
properly determine where in the chain of
distribution the sale occurs.
5 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,
technical service, freight and delivery, and
inventory maintenance.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Notices
respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
importer–specific assessment rates on
the basis of the ratio of the total amount
of antidumping duties calculated for the
Preliminary Results of Review
examined sales and the total entered
As a result of this review, we
value of the examined sales. These rates
preliminarily find that the following
will be assessed uniformly on all entries
weighted–average dumping margins
of the respective importers made during
exist:
the POR if these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of review.
Manufacturer/Exporter
Margin
The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions
Vita Food Factory
(1989) Ltd. .................
7.11 % directly to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this
Tropical Food Industries
Co., Ltd. ....................
10.51 % review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
Cash Deposit Requirements
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
If these preliminary results are
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
adopted in the final results of review,
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
the following deposit requirements will FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
be effective upon completion of the final Policy Notice). This clarification will
results of this administrative review for
apply to entries of subject merchandise
all shipments of the subject
during the POR produced by companies
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
included in the final results of review
from warehouse, for consumption on or for which the reviewed companies did
after the publication of the final results
not know that the merchandise it sold
of this administrative review, as
to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
provided in section 751(a)(1) of the Act: trading company, or exporter) was
(1) The cash deposit rate for Vita will be destined for the United States. In such
that established in the final results of
instances, we will instruct CBP to
this review; (2) the cash deposit rate for
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–
Trofco will be that established in the
others rate if there is no rate for the
final results of this review; (3) for
intermediary involved in the
previously reviewed or investigated
transaction. See Assessment Policy
companies not covered in this review,
Notice for a full discussion of this
the cash deposit rate will continue to be clarification.
the company–specific rate published for
Public Comment
the most recent period; (4) if the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the less–than- Department will disclose to any party to
the proceeding the calculations
fair–value (LTFV) investigation, but the
performed in connection with these
manufacturer is a firm covered in this
review, the cash deposit rate will be the preliminary results within five days
after the date of public announcement of
rate established for the most recent
this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309,
period for the manufacturer of the
interested parties may submit written
subject merchandise; and 5) if neither
comments in response to these
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
preliminary results. Unless extended by
firm covered in this or any previous
the Department, case briefs are to be
proceeding conducted by the
submitted within 30 days after the date
Department, the cash deposit rate will
of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
continue to be the ‘‘all others’’ rate
briefs, limited to arguments raised in
established in the LTFV investigation,
case briefs, may be submitted no later
which is 24.64 percent. See
than five days after the time limit for
Antidumping Duty Order 71 FR at
36776. These cash deposit requirements, filing case briefs. Parties who submit
arguments in this proceeding are
when imposed, shall remain in effect
requested to submit with the argument:
until further notice.
(1) A statement of the issues; (2) a brief
Duty Assessment
summary of the argument; and (3) a
Upon publication of the final results
table of authorities. See 19 CFR
of this review, the Department shall
309(c)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs must
determine, and CBP shall assess,
be served on interested parties in
antidumping duties on all appropriate
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR
Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates interested parties who wish to request a
an assessment rate for each importer of
hearing or to participate if one is
the subject merchandise for each
requested must submit a written request
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
based on the official exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York. See also 19 CFR 351.415.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:14 Aug 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44495
to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration within 30 days of the
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 raised. Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in the respective case briefs. Unless the
Secretary specifies otherwise, the
hearing, if requested, will be held two
days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of
the time and location.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review
within 120 days after the publication of
this notice, unless extended. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR
351.213(h).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
The preliminary results of this
administrative review and this notice
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: July 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–15489 Filed 8–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–803)
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles,
from the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Final Results of the 2005–2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD
Enforcement Office 7, Import
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44490-44495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15489]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-813]
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand
for the period of review (POR) July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The
review covers two respondents, Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd. (Vita) and
Tropical Food Industries Co. Ltd. (Trofco). The domestic interested
party for this proceeding is Maui Pineapple Company Ltd. (petitioner).
The Department preliminarily determines that Vita and Trofco made
sales to the United States at less than normal value (NV). If these
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of Vita's and
Trofco's merchandise during the POR. The preliminary results are listed
below in the section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Douglas Kirby, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2371 or (202) 482-3782, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on CPF from
Thailand on July 18, 1995. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and
Amended Final Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60
FR 36775 (July 18, 1995) (Antidumping Duty Order). On July 3, 2006, the
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on CPF
from Thailand. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006).
The Department received a request for review from Vita, by the July
31, 2006 deadline and therefore, on August 30, 2006, the Department
published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CPF from
Thailand for Vita. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR
51573 (August 30, 2006).
Trofco also submitted a request for review, but Trofco's review
request was not received by the Department until after the deadline for
requesting an administrative review. However, the record of this
proceeding shows that if not for an error by the express delivery
service, Trofco's review request would have been received by the
Department on or before the July 31, 2006 deadline. Therefore, on
October 10, 2006 the Department initiated a review for Trofco. For
further discussion on this issue, see Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 71 FR
59430 (October 10, 2006).
On August 14, 2006, the Department issued sections A through E of
the questionnaire to Vita.\1\ Vita submitted its section A response on
September 12, 2006, and submitted its sections B through D response on
September 27, 2006. The Department issued a sections A through D
supplemental questionnaire on February 6, 2007, and Vita responded on
February 20, 2007. On April 13, 2007, the Department issued a second
sections A through D supplemental questionnaire to Vita; Vita responded
on April 25, 2007. Finally, on May 18, 2007, the Department issued a
third sections A through D supplemental questionnaire to Vita, and Vita
responded on May 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in
non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of
U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production
of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the
merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 12, 2006, the Department issued sections A through E of
the questionnaire to Trofco. Trofco submitted its section A
questionnaire response on October 17, 2006, and submitted its responses
to sections B and C on November 15, 2006. The Department issued a
sections A through C supplemental questionnaire on
[[Page 44491]]
January 29, 2007, and Trofco responded on February 12, 2007. On May 18,
2007 the Department issued a second sections A through C supplemental
questionnaire and Trofco responded on May 24, 2007.
On November 27, 2006 the petitioner filed an allegation of sales
below the cost of production for Trofco. On December 14, 2006 the
Department initiated a cost investigation. Trofco submitted its section
D response on December 28, 2006. See ``Cost of Production Analysis''
infra for further discussion. On January 31, 2006, the Department
issued a section D supplemental questionnaire to Trofco. Trofco
responded on February 20, 2007. On March 26, 2007 the Department issued
a second section D supplemental questionnaire, and Trofco responded on
April 4, 2007. A third and fourth section D supplemental questionnaire
were issued on May 2 and May 16, 2007, respectively, and Trofco
submitted its responses on May 10 and May 22, 2007.
On November 15, 2006, the petitioner submitted deficiency comments
on sections A through D of Vita's questionnaire responses. On November
21, 2006, the petitioner submitted deficiency comments on Trofco's
section A questionnaire response. On January 18, 2007, and April 12,
2007, respectively, the petitioner submitted deficiency comments and a
rebuttal to Trofco's section D questionnaire responses. See Cost of
Production Analysis infra for further discussion.
On March 30, 2007, the Department, 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), extended the deadline for the preliminary results of
this antidumping duty administrative review by 120 days from April 2,
2007 until no later than July 31, 2007. See Canned Pineapple Fruit from
Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 15101 (March 30, 2007).
Verification
On March 27, 2007, the petitioner submitted a timely letter
requesting that the Department conduct verification of Vita's and
Trofco's questionnaire responses pursuant to section 782(i)(3)(A) of
the Act. The Department intends to conduct a sales and cost
verification of Vita and a sales verification of Trofco following the
preliminary results of this review. From June 20 through June 26, 2007,
the Department conducted a cost verification of Trofco. For the results
and analysis of Trofco's cost verification, see Memorandum from Ernest
Z. Gziryan, Senior Accountant to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of
Accounting, Verification of the Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Data Submitted by Tropical Food Industries Co. Ltd. in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit from
Thailand (Trofco Cost Verification Report) (July 31, 2007) on file in
room B-099, the Central Records Unit of the main Commerce building
(CRU).
Period of Review
This review covers the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is CPF, defined as pineapple
processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings,
pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and
cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added.
CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and
2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based
syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e.,
juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the
scope is dispositive. There have been no scope rulings for the subject
order.
Less than Fair Value Analysis
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to
NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of
this notice in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by respondents that are covered by the description in
the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and that were sold in the
comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
In accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in
Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaires.
Date of Sale
It is the Department's practice to use invoice date as the date of
sale. However, 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the Secretary may use a
date other than the invoice date if the Secretary is satisfied that the
material terms of the sale were established on some other date. See
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 2d 207,
217-219 (CIT 2000). Both Vita and Trofco reported invoice date as the
date of sale for all sales in both the comparison and U.S. markets.
After analyzing the responses of both parties and the sample sales
documents provided, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the
appropriate date of sale for all sales under review.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we use EP when the
subject merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States, and constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. As discussed below, we conclude
that all of Vita's and Trofco's U.S. sales are EP sales.
Vita: Vita identified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales in its
questionnaire responses. The Department based the price of each of
Vita's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on EP, as defined in section
772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior to
importation, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, or to
unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States and the
use of CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the
record. In accordance with section 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated EP using the prices Vita charged for packed subject
merchandise shipped FOB. We made deductions for movement expenses,
including, where applicable, charges for transportation, terminal
handling, container stuffing, bill of lading preparation, customs
clearance, and legal and port fees documentation. See Analysis
Memorandum for Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd., (Vita Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum) dated concurrently with this notice. Vita reported
post-sale, post-POR price adjustments in its September 12, 2006,
section A questionnaire response. In addition, Vita explained that the
company did not revise its sales
[[Page 44492]]
contracts and other related sales documents for these reported post-
sale billing adjustments. The Department asked in a supplemental
questionnaire to Vita why no revisions to the sales documentation were
made for the reported post-sale billing adjustments. Vita explained
that it is its normal practice to make post-sale billing adjustments
through discussions by telephone with its customers without revisions
to sales documentation. See Vita 1st Supplemental Questionnaire at 9.
Because Vita was unable to provide any documentation demonstrating that
there were actual price adjustments, we did not make any adjustments to
EP for these claimed post-sale price adjustments. See Corus Engineering
Steels Ltd. v. United States, (Slip Op. 2003-110, 2003 CIT Lexis 110)
(CIT August 27, 2003) at 11 (``The burden of proof is upon the claimant
to prove entitlement.''). Moreover, Vita reported similar post-sale
billing adjustments in the most recent review and the Department did
not include these adjustments in the calculation of EP. See Canned
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review (10th Review Preliminary Results) 71 FR 44256,
44258 (August 4, 2006), unchanged in Canned Pineapple Fruit from
Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, (10th Review Final Results) 71 FR 70948
(December 7, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
Trofco: Trofco identified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales in its
questionnaire responses. The Department based the price of each of
Trofco's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on EP, as defined in section
772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior to
importation, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, or to
unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States and the
use of CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the
record. In accordance with sections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated EP using the prices Trofco charged for packed subject
merchandise shipped FOB, from which we made deductions for movement
expenses, including, where applicable, charges for transportation,
terminal handling, container stuffing, bill of lading preparation,
Customs clearance, and legal and port fees documentation. See Analysis
Memorandum for Tropical Food Industries Co, Ltd., (Trofco Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum) dated concurrently with this notice.
Normal Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold
for consumption in the comparison market, in the usual commercial
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent
practicable, at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP sale. See
``Level of Trade'' section below. After testing comparison market
viability and whether comparison market sales were at below-cost
prices, we calculated NV for Vita and Trofco as discussed in the
following sections.
Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) 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 (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
normally should be greater than or equal to five percent of the
aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the aggregate volume of
home market sales of the foreign like product to the aggregate volume
of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise. See also 19 CFR 351.404(b).
Vita: Because the aggregate volume of Vita's home market sales of
foreign like product is less than five percent of the aggregate volume
of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we based NV on sales of the
foreign like product in a country other than Vita's home market. See
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Specifically, we based NV for Vita
on sales of the foreign like product in Germany. The Department
selected Germany because sales to Vita's largest third-country market
(the Netherlands) were largely trans-shipments to ultimate customers
located in Germany. In addition, the product similarity for CPF sold to
Germany and to the U.S. was superior vis-a-vis the product similarity
for the Netherlands and the United States. See ``Cost of Production
Analysis'' infra for further discussion.
Trofco: Trofco's home market sales were greater than five percent
as compared to the aggregate volume of U.S. sales during the POR.
Therefore, Trofco's volume of sales in the home market during the POR
was sufficient to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV.
Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
Vita: In the most recently completed administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand, the Department determined
that Vita sold foreign-like product in its comparison market at prices
below the cost of producing the product and excluded such sales from
the calculation of NV. See 10th Review Preliminary Results and 10th
Review Final Results. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department determined that there are
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the current POR,
Vita sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of
producing the product and instituted a below cost inquiry as to Vita's
sales in the comparison market.\2\ Compare Top-of-the-Stove Stainless
Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and
Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR
62951, 62954 (October 9, 2002) (unchanged in final results 68 FR 7503 )
with Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea:
Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 11259, 11263-64 (February 23, 2001)
(unchanged in final results 66 FR 45664 ) for an example where the
Department instituted a below cost inquiry under section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act based on a below cost finding in the most
recently completed administrative review and the recently completed
administrative review was based on a different comparison market than
the on-going administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition, the Department notes that on May 15, 2007,
petitioner submitted a request that a cost investigation be
initiated by the Department with respect to sales of CPF by Vita to
Germany during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trofco: On November 27, 2007, petitioner alleged that Trofco made
home market sales of CPF at prices below the cost of production during
the POR. The Department found a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that Trofco's sales in Thailand were at prices below the COP and
accordingly initiated a cost investigation for the current review. See
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office
6, from The Team on Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production for Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd, (December 14, 2006).
We relied on the COP data submitted by Trofco in its cost questionnaire
responses with the following exceptions: (1) We revised the reported
net realizable values (``NRV'') which Trofco used to allocate pineapple
fruit cost to pineapple solid and pineapple juice products to account
for the separately identifiable costs incurred to produce each product;
(2) we revised
[[Page 44493]]
the reported financial expense rate to include the net foreign exchange
gains and losses; and (3) we adjusted the cost of sales denominator
used to calculate the general and administrative and financial expense
rates to remove packing expenses. Our revisions to Trofco's COP data
are discussed in the Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan, Senior
Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for
the Preliminary Results,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market
with model-specific COP figures in the POR. In accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs
of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like
product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and
financial expenses and packing. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we
used comparison market sales and COP information provided by Vita and
Trofco in their questionnaire responses. See Vita's September 27, 2006
section D questionnaire response; see also Trofco's December 28, 2007
section D questionnaire response.
Results of COP Test
We compared the weighted-average COPs to comparison market sales of
the foreign-like product, consistent with section 773(b) of the Act, in
order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below
the COP. See also 19 CFR 351.404(b). In determining whether to
disregard comparison market sales made at prices below the COP, we
examined whether such sales were made (1) Within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal
course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of
the Act.\3\ On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to
comparison market prices, less any movement charges, discounts and
rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. See Treatment of
Adjustments and Selling Expenses in Calculating the Cost of Production
(``COP'') and Constructed Value (``CV'') Import Policy Bulletin (March
25, 1994) on file in the CRU, which can also be accessed directly on
the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 773(b)(2)(ii)(B-C) of the Act defines extended
period of time as a period that is normally 1 year, but not less
than 6 months, and substantial quantities as sales made at prices
below the cost of production that have been made in substantial
quantities if (i) The volume of such sales represents 20 percent or
more of the volume of sales under consideration for the
determination of normal value, or (ii) the weighted average per unit
price of the sales under consideration for the determination of
normal value is less than the weighted average per unit cost of
production for such sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP,
we disregarded the below-cost sales when: (1) They were made in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and; (2) based on our
comparison of prices to average COPs in the POR, we determined that the
below-cost prices would not permit the recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those product comparisons for which there were comparison
market sales of like product in the ordinary course of trade, we based
NV on comparison market prices to affiliated (when made at prices
determined to be arms-length) or unaffiliated parties, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We made adjustments for
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CRF 351.411 as well as for
differences in direct selling expenses, in accordance with
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We relied on our model
match criteria in order to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to
comparison sales of the foreign like product based on the reported
physical characteristics of the subject merchandise. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare
to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign
like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting
instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. See section
771(16) of the Act.
Vita: When comparing Vita comparison market sales to its EP sales,
the Department calculated Vita's NV (shipped FOB, CNF or FAS) NV based
on its gross unit price in Germany to unaffiliated customers. Pursuant
to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement
expenses (i.e., inland freight, ocean freight and warehousing), when
appropriate. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the
Act, we deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.410(c), we deducted comparison market direct selling expenses
(i.e., credit, warranty) and added U.S. direct selling expenses. We
made the appropriate adjustment for commissions paid in the home market
pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We made
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling
expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the
``commission offset.'' Specifically, where commissions are incurred in
one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such
allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the
one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is
less.
Trofco: The Department calculated Trofco's NV based on its gross
unit price to unaffiliated customers less billing adjustments pursuant
to section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses
(i.e., inland freight and warehousing), when appropriate. In accordance
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we deducted comparison
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we deducted
comparison market direct selling expenses (i.e., credit) and added U.S.
direct selling expenses. We made the appropriate adjustment for
commissions paid in the home market pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and19 CFR 351.410(c). We made adjustments, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison
market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one
market but not in the other, the ``commission offset.'' Specifically,
where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we
will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the
selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed
in the other market, whichever is less.
[[Page 44494]]
Price to Constructed Value Comparisons
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used
constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV when we could not determine
NV because there were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of identical
or similar merchandise in the comparison market. We calculated CV in
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, including the cost of
materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&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 comparison market.
Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of
the sales from which we derive selling expenses, SG&A expenses, and
profit for CV, where possible.
Vita: We used CV as the basis for NV for sales in which there were
no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We
calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We added
reported materials, labor, and factory overhead costs to derive the
cost of manufacture (COM), in accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the
Act. We then added interest expenses, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S.
packing expenses to derive the CV (and added U.S. credit expenses for
comparison to EP), in accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and (3) of the
Act. We calculated profit based on the total value of sales and total
COP reported by Vita in its questionnaire response, in accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we deducted comparison market
credit expenses from CV and added U.S. credit to calculate the foreign
unit price in dollars (FUPDOL), pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(A) of the
Act.
Trofco: We used CV as the basis for NV for sales in which there
were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We
calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We added
reported materials, labor, and factory overhead costs, adjusted as
shown in the COP Analysis section above, to derive the cost of
manufacture (COM), in accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act. We
then added interest expenses adjusted as shown in the COP Analysis
section above, SG&A expenses adjusted as shown in the COP Analysis
section above, profit, and U.S. packing expenses to derive the CV, in
accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and (3) of the Act.
Based on the information currently on the record, all of Trofco's
sales in Thailand failed the COP test and therefore were outside the
ordinary course of trade; hence, we cannot determine selling expenses
or profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 773(e)(2)(B)
of the Act sets forth three alternatives: (i) Selling expense and
profit may be calculated based on ``actual amounts incurred by the
specific exporter or producer of merchandise in the same general
category'' as subject merchandise; (ii) may be calculated based on
``the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by
{other{time} exporters or producers that are subject to the
investigation''; or (iii) ``any other reasonable method,'' with limits
on the ``profit cap.''
For this review, the Department is calculating CV profit based on
the amounts earned by Trofco on its home market sales of canned fruit
other than pineapple (i.e., profit on sales of the same general
category of merchandise as subject canned pineapple fruit under section
773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act). For selling expenses, we cannot use
alternative (i) because we do not have the information on Trofco's
other canned fruit sales (other than pineapple) which we consider to be
in the same general category of merchandise as subject canned pineapple
fruit. In addition, we cannot use alternative (ii) without violating
our responsibility to protect respondent's administrative protective
order (APO) information, because Vita is the only other respondent in
this review. Therefore, for selling expenses, we are using alternative
(iii) 'any other reasonable method;' and basing Trofco's CV selling
expenses on its reported home market sales. Therefore, we deducted home
market credit expenses from CV and added U.S. credit to calculate the
foreign unit price in dollars (FUPDOL), pursuant to section
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act.
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 LOT as the EP or CEP sale. 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) (South African Plate Final). 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),\4\ including selling
functions,\5\ class of customer (customer category), and the level of
selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The marketing process in the United States and in the
comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale
to the final user or consumer. 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 the narrative responses of each respondent to properly
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs.
\5\ 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, technical service,
freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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), we consider the starting
prices before any adjustments. With respect to CEP sales, the
Department removes the selling activities set forth in section 772(d)
of the Act from the CEP starting price prior to performing its LOT
analysis. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, for CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on
the starting price of the sales, as adjusted under section 772(d) of
the Act.
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 sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a
different LOT in the comparison market. However, in this case, the
Department preliminarily determines that no level of trade adjustment
was necessary for Trofco and Vita, consistent with what the parties
reported in their respective questionnaire responses. For further
details on the Department's LOT analysis, see Vita Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum and Trofco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
In accordance with section 773A of the Act, we made currency
conversions
[[Page 44495]]
based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S.
sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See also 19
CFR 351.415.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vita Food Factory (1989) Ltd........................ 7.11 %
Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd................... 10.51 %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of
review, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final
results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Vita will be that established
in the final results of this review; (2) the cash deposit rate for
Trofco will be that established in the final results of this review;
(3) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in
this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (4) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise;
and 5) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous proceeding conducted by the Department, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the ``all others'' rate
established in the LTFV investigation, which is 24.64 percent. See
Antidumping Duty Order 71 FR at 36776. These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Duty Assessment
Upon publication of the final results of this review, the
Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the
Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the
subject merchandise for each respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on
the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales and the total entered value of the
examined sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries
of the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results of review. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in the final
results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that
the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading
company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in
the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of
this clarification.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any
party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of public
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary
results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be
submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be
submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case
briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR
309(c)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested
parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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
within 30 days of the 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 raised. Issues
raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective
case briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review within 120 days after the publication of this notice, unless
extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
The preliminary results of this administrative review and this
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-15489 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S