[Federal Register: December 13, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 76718-76720]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13de02-28]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-813]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final
Determination to Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from
Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand.
This review covers eight producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2000, through June
30, 2001. Based on our analysis of the comments received, these final
results differ from the preliminary results. The final results are
listed below in the Final Results of Review section. Furthermore, the
preliminary results for one exporter/producer, Siam Food Products
Public Co. Ltd. (SFP), are adopted in our final results of this
administrative review; therefore, we will revoke the antidumping duty
order with respect to SFP, based on three consecutive review periods of
sales at not less than normal value. See Revocation of the Order (in
Part) section of this notice. Consistent with the preliminary results,
we are rescinding the review with respect to one exporter/producer,
Prachuab Fruit Canning Company (Praft) based on our determination that
this company had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or Charles Riggle, Office
5, Group II, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0371 and (202) 482-0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department regulations are references
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).
Background
This review covers the following producers/exporters of merchandise
subject to the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from
Thailand: Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita), Kuiburi Fruit
Canning Co., Ltd. (Kuiburi), Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee),
Siam Food Products Public Co., Ltd. (SFP), The Thai Pineapple Public
Co., Ltd. (TIPCO), Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC),
Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole
Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, Dole), and Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co.,
Ltd. (SIFCO).
On August 7, 2002, the Department published the preliminary results
of this review and invited interested parties to comment on those
results. See Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination to
Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 67 FR 51171
(Preliminary Results). On September 6, 2002, we received case briefs
from Dole, TPC, and the petitioners.\1\ On September 13, 2002, we
received rebuttal briefs from Dole, Malee, and the petitioners. TIPCO
also submitted a rebuttal brief on September 25, 2002, but it was
rejected by the Department as an untimely submission.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners in this case are Maui Pineapple Company and
the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union.
\2\ See Letter to Anurat Tiamtan from Gary Taverman, Director,
Office 5, Import Administration (September 30, 2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 6, 2002, Malee and SFP requested a public hearing, but
withdrew their requests on September 19, 2002. As a result, no public
hearing was held.
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
[[Page 76719]]
customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Recission
On September 17, 2001, in response to the Department's
questionnaire, Praft stated that it made no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. We received no
comments regarding our preliminary decision to rescind the review with
respect to Praft and, consistent with the preliminary results, we are
rescinding the review with respect to Praft.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand'' from Bernard T.
Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Group II, Import
Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated December 5, 2002 (Decision Memorandum), which is
hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have
responded, all of which are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, is
attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be
accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Fair Value Comparisons
Except for the calculations for Dole and Malee, we calculated
export price and normal value based on the same methodology used in the
preliminary results. Changes to the export price calculation for Dole
and the indirect selling expenses for Malee are detailed in their
respective analysis memoranda.
Cost of Production
Except for Malee, we calculated the cost of production (COP) for
the merchandise based on the same methodology used in the preliminary
results. Changes to the general and administrative expense ratio for
Malee are detailed in the Decision Memorandum.
Revocation of the Order (in Part)
On July 31, 2001, SFP requested that the Department revoke the
antidumping order in part as regards SFP based on the absence of
dumping pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). SFP submitted, along with its
revocation request, a certification stating that: (1) the company sold
subject merchandise at not less than normal value during the POR, and
that in the future it would not sell such merchandise at less than
normal value (see 19 CFR 351.222 (e)(1)(i)); (2) the company has sold
the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities
during each of the past three years (see 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)); and
(3) the company agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as
long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the
Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation,
sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value. See 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B), and as referenced at 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(iii). No
comments were filed by any party on our preliminary decision to revoke
the order with respect to SFP.
Based on the final results of this review and the final results of
the two preceding reviews (see Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination Not To Revoke Order
in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 65 FR 77851 (December
13, 2000) and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Recission of Administrative Review in Part:
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 66 FR 52744, (October 17, 2001),
SFP has demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than
normal value.
Furthermore, the Department has found that SFP's aggregate sales to
the United States have been made in commercial quantities during the
last three segments of this proceeding. See Memorandum to Bernard
Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Group II, Import Administration
from David Layton, Import Compliance Specialist, Office 5, Import
Administration: ``Preliminary Determination to Revoke in Part the
Antidumping Duty Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand'' dated
July 31, 2002, on file in the CRU.
Based on the above facts, the Department determines that the
continued application of the antidumping duty order is not necessary to
offset dumping by SFP. SFP has also agreed in writing to its immediate
reinstatement in the order, as long as any producer or exporter is
subject to the order, should the Department conclude that SFP,
subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than
normal value. Therefore, we will revoke the order with respect to
merchandise produced and exported by SFP. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(f), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any
such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after July 1, 2001. The Department will further instruct the
Customs Service to refund with interest any cash deposit on entries
made after June 30, 2001.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2000,
through June 30, 2001:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole)............................. 0.27
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd. (TIPCO)............ 0.44
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd. (Kuiburi)................... 0.39
Thai Pineapple Canning Industry (TPC)...................... 2.43
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd. (SIFCO)................. 0.64
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co. Ltd. (Vita)................... 1.94
Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee)..................... 0.74
Siam Food Products Public Co., Ltd. (SFP).................. 0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject
merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where
the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on that
importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.
Furthermore, the following 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 these
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)
of the Act: (1) for the
[[Page 76720]]
companies named above (with the exception of SFP, for whom we are
revoking the order), the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed
above, except where the margins are zero or de minimis no cash deposit
will be required, (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or
exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment
of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in
which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this
proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that
established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final
results of review or in the most recent segment of the proceeding in
which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any
previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be
24.64 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with
19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 5, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX
List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO DOLE
Comment 1: Royalty Payments
Comment 2: Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 3: Surrogate Canadian-dollar Interest Rate
Comment 4: Clerical Error Allegation
II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO MALEE
Comment 5: Indirect Selling Expense Ratio
Comment 6: Net Realizable Value Calculation
Comment 7: General and Administrative Expenses
III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TIPCO
Comment 8: Calculation of G & A Expenses
Comment 9: Income Offsets
Comment 10: Packing Overhead
IV. JOINT ISSUE: DOLE, MALEE, & TIPCO
Comment 11: Fruit Cost Allocation
V. ISSUE SPECIFIC TO TPC
Comment 12: Affiliation
[FR Doc. 02-31479 Filed 12-12-02; 8:45 am]