[Federal Register: August 6, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 47869-47875]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06au04-41]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-337-806]
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries From Chile
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries
from Chile with respect to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.; Santiago Comercio
Exterior Exportaciones Limitada; and Uren Chile, S.A. We are rescinding
the administrative review with respect to Vital Berry Marketing, S.A.
This review covers sales of individually quick frozen red raspberries
to the United States during the period December 31, 2001, through June
30, 2003.
We preliminarily find that, during the period of review, sales of
individually quick frozen red raspberries were made below normal value.
If the preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective August 6, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle, Ryan Langan, or Blanche
Ziv, Office 1, 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-
1503, (202) 482-2613, and (202) 482-4207, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 2, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published in the Federal Register a notice of the opportunity to
request an administrative review in the above-cited segment of the
antidumping duty proceeding. See 68 FR 39511. We received a timely
filed request for review of 51 companies from the Pacific Northwest
Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual
members, Curt Maberry Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., Maberry Packing, and
Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, ``petitioners''). We also received
timely filed requests for review from Fruticola Olmue, S.A.
(``Olmue''); Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda.
(``SANCO''); and Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. (``Vital Berry'').\1\ On
August 22, 2003, we initiated an administrative review of the 51
companies. See 68 FR 50750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These three companies were included in the petitioners'
request for review of 51 companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 2003, the Department determined that it was not
practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of
the 51 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we
selected the following seven companies as respondents in this review:
Arlavan, S.A.; C y C Group, S.A.; Olmue; SANCO; Uren Chile, S.A.
(``Uren''); Valles Andinos, S.A.; and Vital Berry. See October 16,
2003, memorandum, ``Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from
Chile: Respondent Selection,'' which is on file in the Central Records
Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 in the main Department building.
On October 17, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to the companies listed above. We received responses
from the seven companies in November and December 2003.
On January 5, 2004, we received a timely filed submission from the
petitioners withdrawing their request for review for all of the
companies for which they had requested an administrative review, except
Uren. Because the petitioners were the only parties to request an
administrative review for all companies except Olmue, SANCO, and Vital
Berry, on January 15, 2004, we rescinded the administrative review with
respect to all of the 51 companies mentioned above except Olmue, SANCO,
Uren, and Vital Berry, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) (2003).
See 69 FR 2330.
On January 16, 2004, the petitioners submitted timely allegations
that Olmue, SANCO, Uren, and Vital Berry made sales below the cost of
production (``COP'') during the period of review (``POR'').
On January 21, 2004, Vital Berry withdrew its request for an
administrative review. Since the petitioners had earlier withdrawn
their request for review of Vital Berry and we did not receive any
objections to Vital Berry's request for withdrawal, we are rescinding
the administrative review with respect to Vital Berry and publishing
notice of this rescission in the Federal Register, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(d)(4), at this time. See January 29, 2004, memorandum,
``Partial Rescission of Administrative Review with Respect to Vital
Berry Marketing, S.A.,'' which is on file in the CRU.
On February 18, 2004, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, effective January 1, 1995 by the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (``the Act''), we initiated investigations to determine
whether SANCO and Uren made comparison market sales during the POR at
prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act
because we found that the petitioners' January 16, 2004, allegations
provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the
comparison market were made at prices below the COP. See February 18,
2004, memorandum, ``Allegation of Sales Below Cost of Production for
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones;'' February 18, 2004,
memorandum, ``Allegation of Sales Below Cost of Production for Uren
Chile,'' which are on file in the CRU.
[[Page 47870]]
Because we disregarded below cost sales by Olmue to the same comparison
market in the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation
(the most recently completed segment of the proceeding), we consider
that this provides ``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' that
Olmue made sales to France of the subject merchandise at below-cost
prices during the POR. Thus, we did not analyze the petitioners' sales-
below-cost allegations with respect to Olmue. On February 19, 2004, we
notified SANCO and Uren that they must respond to section D of the
antidumping duty questionnaire.
We issued supplemental questionnaires to Olmue, SANCO, and Uren
from February through April 2004. We received timely filed responses.
On March 9, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register
an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary
results of this review until no later than July 30, 2004, in accordance
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See 69
FR 10981.
On April 13, 2004, we sent a questionnaire to Uren's largest
supplier of purchased IQF red raspberries requesting COP information.
On May 12, 2004, we received a letter from the supplier stating that it
could not respond to the Department's questionnaire. For further
discussion, see the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' section below.
We conducted verification of SANCO from May 27 through June 2,
2004.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are imports of individually
quick frozen (``IQF'') whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with
or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety,
grade, size or horticulture method (e.g., organic or not), the size of
the container in which packed, or the method of packing. The scope of
the order excludes fresh red raspberries and block frozen red
raspberries (i.e., puree, straight pack, juice stock, and juice
concentrate).
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable
under 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under the order is dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the
United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export
price (``EP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2), we compared individual EPs to
weighted-average NVs, which were calculated in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced and sold by Olmue, SANCO, and Uren (collectively,
``respondents'') in the comparison market during the POR that fit the
description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice to be
foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales of identical
merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of
trade, where possible. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade.
To determine the appropriate product comparisons, we considered the
following physical characteristics of the products in order of
importance: Grade, variety, form, cultivation method, and additives.
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the
exporter or producer outside the United States and because constructed
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on
packed ex-factory, CIF, C&F, FOB, and delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We identified the correct starting
price by adjusting the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for
interest revenue and billing adjustments. We made deductions from the
starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate,
domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, pre-sale warehousing
expenses, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties,
U.S. inland freight, and other U.S. transportation expenses.
To calculate EP, we relied upon the data submitted by the
respondents, except as noted below:
Olmue
For certain sales, Olmue did not report payment dates because
payment is still pending. For those sales for which payment has not yet
been received, we set the payment date equal to the date of the
preliminary results. We recalculated Olmue's imputed credit expenses
using the revised payment dates, where applicable, and the gross unit
price adjusted for pricing adjustments. For further discussion, see
July 29, 2004, memorandum, ``Calculations for the Preliminary Results
for Fruticola Olmue, S.A.'' (``Olmue Calculation Memorandum''), which
is on file in the CRU.
SANCO
For certain sales, we revised SANCO's reported date of sale, gross
unit price, warehousing expenses, and direct selling expenses based on
information obtained at verification. We also revised SANCO's indirect
selling expenses ratio and, accordingly, recalculated indirect selling
expenses. In addition, we recalculated imputed credit expenses because
SANCO revised its date of sale but did not revise its reported credit
expenses. See July 19, 2004, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
of IQF Red Raspberries from Chile: Verification Report-SANCO'' (``SANCO
Verification Report'') at 2, 11-13, and 15-17, which is on file in the
CRU. For further discussion, see July 29, 2004, memorandum,
``Calculations for the Preliminary Results for Santiago Comercio
Exterior Exportaciones Limitada'' (``SANCO Calculation Memorandum''),
which is on file in the CRU.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Olmue, SANCO, and Uren reported that their home market sales of IQF
red raspberries during the POR were less than five percent of their
sales of IQF red raspberries in the United States. Therefore, none of
the respondents had a viable home market for purposes of calculating
normal value. SANCO and Uren reported that the United Kingdom was their
largest viable third country market, and Olmue reported that France was
its largest viable third country market. Accordingly, SANCO and Uren
[[Page 47871]]
reported their sales to the United Kingdom, and Olmue reported its
sales to France for purposes of calculating NV.
B. Cost of Production
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative
(``G&A'') expenses, financial expenses, and comparison market packing
costs, where appropriate. See infra ``Test of Comparison Market Sales
Prices'' for a discussion of the treatment of comparison market selling
expenses.
We relied on the COP data submitted by the respondents, except
where noted below:
Olmue
We used Olmue's G&A expenses for fiscal year 2002, the fiscal year
which most closely corresponds to the POR. We also used the fiscal year
2002 financial expenses for the financial expense ratio. In addition,
we revised Olmue's reported financial expenses to include the full
portion of the monetary correction reported in Olmue's financial
statements and disallowed the portion of the reported financial
expenses offset related to interest earned on receivables. For further
discussion, see Olmue Calculation Memorandum.
Olmue claimed a start-up adjustment for its new IQF tunnel and
various updates to its existing plant. Section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the
Act sets forth the criteria that a respondent must meet in order for
the Department to grant an adjustment for startup operations: (I) ``a
producer is using new production facilities or producing a new product
that requires substantial additional investment, and (II) production
levels are limited by technical factors associated with the initial
phase of commercial production.'' For purposes of the first criterion,
when a new facility is not constructed, the Department may consider a
``new production facility'' to exist when there has been
``substantially complete retooling of an existing plant'' which
``involves the replacement of nearly all production machinery or the
equivalent rebuilding of existing machinery.'' See Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc No. 103-
316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'') at 836.
Olmue stated in its questionnaire response that its facility is not
new; rather, Olmue expanded the size and capacity of its existing
facility. Olmue explained that it added a new IQF tunnel,
``reinstalled'' the same tunnel from the previous season, and increased
its storage and processing capacity. Olmue claims that these additions
and improvements to its existing facility were a major undertaking
tantamount to the construction of a new facility. Thus, Olmue claims
that it is entitled to a start-up adjustment.
We agree that Olmue added a new IQF tunnel and some new storage and
processing equipment during the POR. However, Olmue has not shown that
the existing facilities (e.g., ``reinstalled'' IQF tunnel) underwent a
``substantially complete retooling,'' which, as defined by the SAA,
``involves the replacement of nearly all production machinery or the
equivalent rebuilding of existing machinery.'' See SAA at 836. Olmue
has provided no information which would indicate that its existing
processing and storage areas were replaced or completely rebuilt.
Rather, when asked in a supplemental questionnaire, Olmue simply
described the new processing and storage equipment installed to
accommodate the increased capacity expected from the new IQF tunnel. In
addition, concerning the existing IQF tunnel, Olmue merely stated that
it was ``experimenting'' with the tunnel which was the ``same tunnel''
that was ``reinstalled from the previous season.'' See Olmue's April 5,
2004, supplemental section D questionnaire response at 11 {emphasis
added{time} . Thus, the information on the record indicates that Olmue
did not completely retool or rebuild its existing machinery and
facilities.
Instead, the record indicates that Olmue merely increased its
capacity by adding new machinery for another production line within its
existing production facility. The SAA states that the Department ``will
not consider an expansion of the capacity of an existing production
line to be a startup operation unless the expansion of the capacity
constitutes such a major undertaking that it requires the construction
of a new facility* * *'' See SAA at 836. As discussed above, Olmue did
not build a new facility and has not provided evidence that its current
facility has been substantially retooled or rebuilt. We find that the
changes Olmue made to its existing production facility do not meet the
first criterion of the statutory requirement of section
773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act for a start-up adjustment. Therefore, the
Department did not make a start-up adjustment when calculating Olmue's
COP.
SANCO
We revised direct materials, direct labor, variable overhead, and
fixed overhead based on information obtained at verification. See SANCO
Verification Report at 19-23. We also recalculated SANCO's G&A and
financial expenses using the revised total cost of manufacture. For
further discussion, see SANCO Calculation Memorandum.
Uren
Uren was a producer of IQF red raspberries through a tolling
arrangement and also a reseller of the subject merchandise. For
merchandise produced through Uren's tolling arrangement, we based the
COP on the price Uren paid for the fresh berries from its unaffiliated
supplier and the price Uren paid for the processing, plus amounts for
G&A expenses and financial expenses. For IQF raspberries not produced
by Uren, we requested COP data from the largest of Uren's finished
product suppliers. Uren's supplier did not provide the COP information
requested. For IQF raspberries obtained from the unresponsive supplier,
we based the COP on the highest cost reported by Uren for purchases of
finished product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and financial expenses.
For the remaining IQF raspberries not produced by Uren, we based the
COP on Uren's production cost (i.e., Uren's tolling costs). For further
discussion, see the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' section below.
We reallocated certain reported indirect selling expenses to Uren's
reported G&A expenses. For further discussion, see July 29, 2004,
memorandum, ``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Uren Chile
S.A.'' (``Uren Calculation Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, an interested party
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested;
(B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to
section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination under this
[[Page 47872]]
title.\2\ Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse
inferences may be used when a party has failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Where the Department determines that a response to a request
for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of
the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party
submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide
that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If
the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time
limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act,
disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as
appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department
``shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an
interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not
meet all the applicable requirements established by the
administering authority'' if the information is timely, can be
verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if
the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing
the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute
requires the Department to use the information, if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the background section above, on February 18, 2004, the
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Uren made
comparison market sales during the POR at prices below the COP, within
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We received a response from
Uren to section D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire on
April 5, 2004. In its response, Uren reported two different scenarios
depicting its costs: (1) Its acquisition cost for finished subject
merchandise (i.e., Uren acted as a reseller of the subject
merchandise); and (2) its cost for purchases of fresh fruit from
unaffiliated parties and its cost for having an unaffiliated
subcontractor process the fruit. In the second scenario, Uren is the
producer of the tolled merchandise pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(h).
Where the sale to an exporter or reseller is finished subject
merchandise, the Department's practice is to rely on the COP of the
producer. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001) and
accompanying Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. Consistent with our
practice regarding resales of subject merchandise, we requested COP
data from Uren's largest supplier on April 13, 2004.\3\ On May 12,
2004, we received a letter from the supplier stating, among other
things, that it does not export subject merchandise and that it did not
have the resources to respond to the Department's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Uren had multiple suppliers of IQF raspberries during the
POR. We requested COP information from Uren's largest supplier only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department
finds that ``an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' an
adverse inference may be used in determining the facts otherwise
available. Because Uren's supplier, which, as a producer of subject
merchandise, is an interested party in this proceeding, did not act to
the best of its ability by failing to provide the COP information
requested by the Department, we preliminarily find that it is
appropriate to make an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act with respect to the finished berries purchased from that
supplier. As adverse facts available for purchases of finished berries
from Uren's largest supplier, because we did not have any COP
information from any producer of finished berries supplying Uren, we
used the highest of any cost reported by Uren, plus amounts for G&A
expenses and financial expenses, in accordance with section 776(a) of
the Act. In this case, the highest cost reported on the record was a
purchase price by Uren for finished berries. As noted above, when
calculating COP, the Department's practice is to disregard acquisition
costs in favor of the COP of the producer. However, based on our
comparison of the available cost information in this review, we found
that Uren's highest reported acquisition cost for purchases of finished
berries was the highest cost on the record of this proceeding and,
therefore, appropriate as an adverse surrogate for the actual cost of
production.
As noted above, the Department only requested COP information from
Uren's largest supplier of finished berries. The remaining suppliers of
finished berries were not asked to provide cost data for the POR and,
thus, cannot be found to have been non-cooperative. Therefore, for IQF
berries purchased from the remaining suppliers, we applied neutral
facts available for the preliminary results, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. As neutral facts available, we have
used Uren's reported average COP from its tolled merchandise, plus
amounts for G&A expenses and financial expenses.
a. Test of Comparison Market Prices. On a product-specific basis,
we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the comparison market
sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether sales had been
made at prices below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any
applicable billing adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling
expenses, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
In determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1)
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and (2) at
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time.
b. Results of the COP Test. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the
Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given
product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we do not
disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine
that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine
that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities'' within
an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of
the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made
at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of
the Act.
We found that, for Olmue, SANCO and Uren, for certain specific
products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at
prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In
addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore
excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
For U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no
comparable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade
(e.g., sales that passed the cost test), we compared those sales to
constructed value (``CV''), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the
Act.
C. Calculation of Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, when
sales of comparison products could not be found, either because there
were no sales of a comparable product or all
[[Page 47873]]
sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on
CV.
In accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication
for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A
expenses, financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We made
the same adjustments to the CV costs as described in the ``Calculation
of COP'' section of this notice. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling expenses, G&A expenses, and
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country.
D. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.;
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\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 comparison
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final
user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have
many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
\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, freight and
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act, in identifying
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on
either comparison market or third country prices \6\),we consider the
starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable
to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the
comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare
the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In
comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where
available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olmue
Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in
each market and claimed that its sales in both markets were at the same
LOT. Therefore, Olmue did not request an LOT adjustment.
We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities
performed. Olmue reported that it sold to distributors and end-users in
the third country and to traders, distributors, end-users, and
retailers in the United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar
selling activities regardless of the customer category. Thus, we
preliminarily determine that Olmue sold to a single LOT in the
comparison and U.S. markets. Moreover, there was only a minor
difference in the selling activities between the two markets. In the
U.S. market, Olmue received interest revenue on several sales to one
customer. Otherwise, sales in both markets were direct shipments to
customers from the plant. Olmue also did not grant rebates or
discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or
incur advertising expenses in either the third country or U.S. market.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that Olmue's sales
in the comparison and U.S. markets were made at the same LOT.
SANCO
SANCO reported that it had a single LOT in the comparison and U.S.
markets and that the LOT in each of these markets was the same.
Therefore, SANCO has not requested an LOT adjustment.
We examined the information reported by SANCO regarding its
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities
performed. SANCO reported two channels of distribution in each market.
In channel one in the U.S. market, the customer is the importer of
record and arranges for customs entry and pays the customs duties. In
channel two in the U.S. market, SANCO is the importer of record and
arranges for customs entry and pays the customs duties. SANCO sells to
the same type of customer in both channels of trade. Except for the
differences regarding the entry of the merchandise, there are no
differences in the selling activities for these two channels of
distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is a
single LOT in the U.S. market.
Similarly, in channel one in the third country market, SANCO ships
raspberries directly from the plant to the customer. In channel two in
the third country market, SANCO warehouses the raspberries before they
are shipped to the customer. SANCO sells to the same type of customer
in both channels of distribution. Although these two channels of
distribution differ slightly in terms of processing activity (i.e.,
warehousing), the selling activities undertaken by SANCO are otherwise
identical. Therefore, we find a single LOT in SANCO's third country
market.
Comparing sales in SANCO's two markets, there is no indication that
there were significantly different selling activities or sales process
activities. SANCO also did not grant rebates or discounts, provide
technical services or post-sale warehousing, or incur advertising
expenses on either U.S. or third country sales.
Therefore, the Department finds that a single LOT exists in both
the U.S. and third country markets, and that SANCO's sales in the U.S.
and third country markets are made at the same LOT.
Uren
Uren reported selling to a single customer category through two
channels of distribution in the comparison market: (1) Direct delivery
sales from Chile to the customer (channel 1); and (2) sales out of
inventory in the United Kingdom (channel 2). We examined these channels
reported by Uren and found that they were similar with respect to
freight services and warranty service. However, we found that they
varied significantly with respect to sales process (e.g., customer
visits, forecasting services, re-sorting, etc.), and warehousing/
inventory maintenance. Based on our overall analysis of the comparison
market, we preliminarily find that channel 1 and channel 2 constitute
distinct LOTs, LOTH 1 and LOTH 2, respectively.
[[Page 47874]]
In the U.S. market, Uren reported sales to processors and trading
companies/resellers through a single channel of distribution, direct
sales. Sales to these two customer categories through this channel of
distribution were similar with respect to sales process, warehouse/
inventory maintenance and warranty service, and differed only slightly
with respect to freight services. Therefore, we preliminarily find that
Uren had a single LOT for its U.S. sales.
When we compare Uren's U.S. LOT to the comparison market LOTs, we
find that the LOT in the United States was similar to the comparison
market LOTH 1 but differed considerably from the comparison market LOTH
2 with respect to sales process and warehouse/inventory maintenance.
Consequently, we matched Uren's U.S. sales to sales LOTH 1 in the
comparison market. Where no matches at the same LOT were possible, we
matched to sales in LOTH 2 and, where appropriate because there was a
pattern of consistent price differences between different LOTs, made an
LOT adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on ex-factory, FOB, C&F, and delivered
prices to unaffiliated customers in the comparison market. We
identified the starting price and made adjustments for billing
adjustments, where appropriate. In accordance with section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses,
including domestic inland freight, pre-sale warehousing expenses,
international freight, marine insurance, third country duties, and
third country inland freight, where applicable. In addition, we made
adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit
expenses, and other direct selling expenses, where appropriate. For
Olmue, we also made adjustments, where appropriate, for indirect
selling expenses incurred in the comparison market or the United States
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the
other (the commission offset), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e).
Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the
merchandise (the ``DIFMER'' adjustment), where applicable, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
To calculate NV, we relied upon the data submitted by the
respondents, except as noted below:
Olmue
We recalculated Olmue's imputed credit expenses using the gross
unit price adjusted for pricing adjustments. For further discussion,
see Olmue Calculation Memorandum.
SANCO
For certain sales, we revised SANCO's reported date of sale,
warehousing expenses, and international freight expenses based on
information obtained at verification. We also revised SANCO's indirect
selling expense ratio and, accordingly, recalculated indirect selling
expenses. In addition, we recalculated imputed credit expenses because
SANCO revised its date of sale but did not revise its reported credit
expenses. See SANCO Verification Report at 2, 11-13, and 15-17. For
further discussion, see SANCO Calculation Memorandum.
Uren
We reallocated certain indirect selling expenses to G&A expenses.
For further discussion, see Uren Calculation Memorandum.
F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV
for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we added
U.S. packing costs.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S.
sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping
margins:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average margin
Exporter/manufacturer percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruticola Olmue, S.A...................... 1.46
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, 0.25 (de minimis)
Ltda.
Uren Chile, S.A........................... 13.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each
respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative
review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the
final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculate importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated
for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or customer).
Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater
than de minimis and the respondent has reported reliable entered
values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the
importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis and we do not have entered values, we calculate a per-unit
assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of
publication of the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Rates
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of IQF red raspberries from Chile entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the
final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.50
percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a
previous
[[Page 47875]]
review or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the
previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers and/or exporters of this
merchandise, shall be 6.33 percent, the ``all others'' rate established
in the LTFV investigation (see 67 FR 45460, July 9, 2002).
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37
days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary
results.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 29, 2004.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-17938 Filed 8-5-04; 8:45 am]