67 FR 51182, August 7, 2002

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-337-803]
 
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Preliminary Determination To Revoke the Order in Part, and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh 
Atlantic Salmon From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by fifteen producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise and L.R. Enterprises,\1\ the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. This review 
covers seventeen producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The 
period of review (POR) is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ L.R. Enterprises is a domestic producer of subject 
merchandise with operations in Lubec, Maine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by 
four of the respondents under review have been made below normal value 
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we 
will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on 
appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price 
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and the normal value.
    We are also rescinding this review with respect to 68 producers, 
and preliminarily rescinding this review with regard to one producer. 
Furthermore, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of this administrative review, we intend to revoke the 
antidumping order with respect to Cultivos Marinos Chiloe Ltda. 
(Cultivos Marinos), Pesquera Eicosal Ltda. (Eicosal), Salmones 
Mainstream S.A. (Mainstream), and Salmones Pacifico Sur, S.A. (Pacifico 
Sur). We do not intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with 
respect to Cultivadora de Salmones Linao Ltda. (Linao) and Salmones 
Tecmar, S.A. (Tecmar) because we have calculated a preliminary 
antidumping margin for these companies in this administrative review. 
If the final results of the review are positive antidumping margins for 
Linao and Tecmar, these companies will not have had sales not below 
their normal values for three consecutive years and, therefore, will 
not be eligible for revocation. We do not intend to revoke the 
antidumping duty with respect to Marine Harvest Chile S.A. (Marine 
Harvest), either. Marine Harvest, as currently constituted, had not 
existed for three years as of the end of the current review period, and 
has only been reviewed for two consecutive periods.\2\ See Preliminary 
Determination Not To Revoke section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In reaching its determination on this issue, the Department 
is mindful of the fact that its determination in the changed 
circumstances review is currently under review by the U.S. Court of 
International Trade. The outcome of this litigation may affect the 
Department's determination regarding revocation for Marine Harvest 
in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit arguments are requested to submit with 
each argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. Further, we would appreciate parties submitting comments 
to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version 
of any such comments on diskette.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Levstik or Constance Handley, at 
(202) 482-2815 or (202) 482-0631, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement 
Office V, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 51183]]

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Case History

    On July 30, 1998, the Department issued an antidumping duty order 
on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. See Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 40699 (July 30, 1998). 
On July 2, 2001, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 66 FR 34910 (July 2, 
2001).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the following producers/
exporters made timely requests that the Department conduct an 
administrative review for the period from July 1, 2000, through June 
30, 2001: (1) Chile Cultivos, S.A. (Chile Cultivos); (2) Linao; (3) 
Cultivos Marinos; (4) Fiordo Blanco S.A. (Fiordo Blanco); (5) Invertec 
Pesquera Mar de Chiloe Ltda (Invertec); (6) Marine Harvest; (7) Pesca 
Chile S.A. (Pesca Chile); (8) Eicosal; (9) Pesquera Pacific Star 
(Pacific Star); (10) Robinson Crusoe Y Cia. Ltda. (Robinson Crusoe); 
(11) Salmones Friosur S.A. (Friosur); (12) Mainstream; (13) Salmones 
Multiexport Ltda. (Multiexport); (14) Pacifico Sur; and (15) Tecmar.
    In addition, on July 31, 2001, L.R. Enterprises, Inc., a domestic 
producer of subject merchandise, requested a review of 86 producers/
exporters of fresh Atlantic salmon. As explained below, L.R. 
Enterprises, Inc., subsequently withdrew its request for review of all 
but 17 of these companies.
    On August 20, 2001, we published the notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period July 1, 
2000, through June 30, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 66 FR 43570 (August 20, 2001).
    Per letters filed on September 4, 7, 19, October 18, and November 1 
and 16, 2001, L.R. Enterprises, Inc., withdrew its request for review 
for all companies except the following: (1) Cultivos Marinos; (2) 
Eicosal; (3) Friosur; (4) Invertec; (5) Linao; (6) Los Fiordos Ltda. 
(Los Fiordos); (7) Mainstream; (8) Marine Harvest; (9) Multiexport; 
(10) Ocean Horizons Chile S.A. (Oceans Horizons); (11) Pacifico Sur; 
(12) Patagonia Salmon Farming S.A. (Patagonia); (13) Pesca Chile; (14) 
Robinson Crusoe; (15) Salmones Andes S.A. (Andes); (16) Salmones 
Unimarc, S.A. (Salmones Unimarc), and (17) Tecmar.
    On September 13, 2001, Chile Cultivos submitted a letter 
withdrawing its request for an administrative review.

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

    Salmones Unimarc certified to the Department that it had not 
shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Our 
examination of entry data for U.S. imports confirmed that Salmones 
Unimarc had not shipped subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 315.213(d)(3), we are 
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Salmones Unimarc.
    In addition we are rescinding the review with regard to the 
following companies for which L.R. Enterprises, Inc., withdrew its 
request for a review, and with regard to Chile Cultivos, which withdrew 
its request for a review:

Acuicultura de Aquas Australes
Agromar Ltda.
Aguas Claras S.A.
Antarfish S.A.
Aquachile S.A.
Aquasur Fisheries Ltda.
Asesoria Acuicola S.A.
Australis S.A.
Best Salmon
Cenculmavique
Centro de Cultivo de Moluscos
Cerro Farrellon Ltda.
Chile Cultivos S.A.
Chisal S.A.
Comercializadora Smoltech Ltda.
Complejo Piscicola Coyhaique
Cultivos San Juan
Cultivos Yardan S.A.
Empresa Nichiro Chile Ltda.
Fiordo Blanco
Fisher Farms
Fitz Roy S.A.
Ganadera Del Mar
G.M. Tornagaleones S.A.
Hiuto Salmones S.A.
Huitosal Mares Australes Salmo Pac.
Instituto Tecnologico Del Salmon S.A.
Inversiones Pacific Star Ltda.
Manao Bay Fishery S.A.
Mardim Ltda.
Pacific Mariculture
Patagonia Fish Farming S.A.
Pesquera Antares S.A.
Pesquera Chiloe S.A.
Pesquera Friosur S.A.
Pesquera Mares de Chile S.A.
Pesquera Pacific Star
Pesquera Quellon Ltda.
Pesquera Y Comercial Rio Peulla S.A.
Piscicola Entre Rios S.A.
Piscicultura Iculpe
Piscicultura La Cascada
Piscultura Santa Margarita
Productos Del Mar Ventisqueros S.A.
Prosmolt S.A.
Quetro S.A.
River Salmon S.A.
Salmoamerica
Salmones Antarctica S.A.
Salmones Aucar Ltda.
Salmones Caicaen S.A.
Salmones Calbuco S.A.
Salmones Chiloe S.A.
Salmones Huillinco S.A.
Salmones Ice Val Ltda.
Salmones Llanquihue
Salmones Pacific Star Ltda.
Salmones Quellon
Salmones Ranco Sur Ltda.
Salmones Skyring S.A.
Salmones Tierra Del Fuego Ltda.
Salmosan
Seafine Salmon S.A.
Soc. Alimentos Maritimos Avalon Ltda.
Soc. Aquacultivos Ltda.
Truchas Aguas Blancas Ltda.
Trusal S.A.
Ventisqueros S.A.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is fresh, farmed Atlantic 
salmon, whether imported ``dressed'' or cut. Atlantic salmon is the 
species Salmo salar, in the genus Salmo of the family salmoninae. 
``Dressed'' Atlantic salmon refers to salmon that has been bled, 
gutted, and cleaned. Dressed Atlantic salmon may be imported with the 
head on or off; with the tail on or off; and with the gills in or out. 
All cuts of fresh Atlantic salmon are included in the scope of the 
review. Examples of cuts include, but are not limited to: crosswise 
cuts (steaks), lengthwise cuts (fillets), lengthwise cuts attached by 
skin (butterfly cuts), combinations of crosswise and lengthwise cuts 
(combination packages), and Atlantic salmon that is minced, shredded, 
or ground. Cuts may be subjected to various degrees of trimming, and 
imported with the skin on or off and with the ``pin bones'' in or out.
    Excluded from the scope are (1) fresh Atlantic salmon that is ``not 
farmed'' (i.e., wild Atlantic salmon); (2) live Atlantic salmon; and 
(3) Atlantic salmon that has been subject to further processing, such 
as frozen, canned, dried, and smoked Atlantic salmon, or processed into 
forms such as sausages, hot dogs, and burgers.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable as 
item

[[Page 51184]]

numbers 0302.12.0003 and 0304.10.4093, 0304.90.1009, 0304.90.1089, and 
0304.90.9091 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, Mainstream, Marine 
Harvest, Pacifico Sur, Tecmar and Linao. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the respondent producers' 
facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We compared the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) 
to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Constructed Export 
Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to 
compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and 
comparison markets that are identical with respect to the matching 
characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents that fit the definition of the scope of the 
review and were sold in the comparison markets during the POR fall 
within the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on 
four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison 
market sales of the foreign like product: form, grade, weight band, and 
trim. As in all previous administrative reviews, we have determined 
that it is generally not possible to match products of dissimilar 
forms, grades, and weight bands, because there are significant 
differences among products that cannot be accounted for by means of a 
difference-in-merchandise adjustment; we did, where appropriate, make 
comparisons of merchandise with different trims. (Unlike the other 
three physical characteristics, trim is the result of a processing 
operation with readily identifiable differences in the variable cost of 
manufacturing, which permits the comparison of similar products with a 
difference-in-merchandise adjustment.) See Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from 
Chile, 65 FR 78472 (December 15, 2000). Where there were no appropriate 
sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in 
the United States to constructed value (CV).

Collapse of Affiliated Parties

    In November 2000, Linao and Tecmar were wholly purchased by a 
common parent, Fjord Seafood ASA. Such members of a corporate grouping 
are considered affiliated parties under section 351.102(b) of the 
Department's regulations (defining ``affiliated'' parties). Section 
351.401(f)(1) of the regulations provides for affiliated producers of 
subject merchandise to be treated as a single entity (i.e., collapsed), 
where (1) those producers have production facilities for similar or 
identical products that would not require substantial retooling of 
either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and 
(2) the Department concludes that there is a significant potential for 
manipulation of price or production.
    Section 351.401(f)(2) of the Department's regulations provides 
factors for the Department to consider when looking for a significant 
potential for manipulation of price or production, namely (i) the level 
of common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or 
board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an 
affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as 
through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and 
pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or 
significant transactions between the affiliated producers. Because they 
were purchased by a common parent during the POR and have production 
facilities for identical products, we find that there is a significant 
potential for the manipulation of prices or production. Accordingly, 
for the period November 15, 2000 through June 30, 2001 we have 
collapsed Linao and Tecmar (Linao/Tecmar) for purposes of our analysis.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. 
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. Section 
772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold inside the United States before or after the 
date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter 
of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or 
exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under subsections 
772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, 
based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer 
in the United States. Where sales were made through an unaffiliated 
consignment broker, we did not consider the consignment broker to be 
the customer; rather, we considered the customer to be the consignment 
broker's customer.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, for both the EP 
and CEP transactions, we reduced the starting price by amounts for 
movement expenses and export taxes and duties, where appropriate. 
Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to 
CEP. Consistent with past practice, for these sales we deducted from 
the CEP commissions charged to, and other direct expenses incurred for 
the account of, the producer/exporter related to economic activity in 
the United States. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 65 FR 48457, 
48460 (August 8, 2000). We did not deduct an amount for CEP profit for 
these sales, because the commission already contains an element for 
profit realized by the unaffiliated consignment broker. For Marine 
Harvest, Multiexport and Pesca Chile, which made sales through an 
affiliated reseller, we calculated a CEP profit ratio following the 
methodology set forth in section 772(f) of the Act. We determined the 
EP or CEP for each company as follows:

Andes

    We calculated an EP for all of Andes' sales because the merchandise 
was sold directly by Andes to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting 
price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. These include inland freight, international freight, and 
brokerage.

Cultivos Marinos

    We calculated an EP for all of Cultivos Marinos' sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Cultivos Marinos to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with

[[Page 51185]]

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted 
the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added 
duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Eicosal

    We calculated an EP for all of Eicosal's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Eicosal to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted 
the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added 
duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Friosur

    We calculated an EP for all of Friosur's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Friosur to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, domestic and U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses, U.S. customs duties and unloading costs. We also added duty 
drawback to the starting price, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act.

Invertec

    We calculated an EP for all of Invertec's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Invertec to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, domestic and U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses and U.S. customs duties. We also added duty drawback to the 
starting price, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Linao and Tecmar

    For the period July 1, 2000 through November 14, 2001, we performed 
company-specific analyses for Linao and Tecmar. As of November 15, 
2001, due to our decision to collapse the two companies, the databases 
of the two companies were merged, and a joint analysis was performed.
    During the POR, Linao made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Linao to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of 
record. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the account of the 
producer/exporter by an unaffiliated consignment broker in the United 
States after the date of importation. EP and CEP sales were based on 
the packed, delivered and duty-paid (DDP) U.S. port and CIF U.S. port 
prices for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price for discounts and rebates, as well as movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
include inland freight, international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. 
duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the 
starting price and added the amount for duty drawback, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we 
also deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including commissions to unaffiliated consignment brokers, direct 
selling expenses (credit expenses and industry association fees), and 
miscellaneous selling expenses incurred in the United States by the 
unaffiliated consignment broker on behalf of the exporter which were 
charged to the respondent separately from the commission. As discussed 
above, we did not deduct an amount for CEP profit, because the 
commission to the unaffiliated broker is considered to contain an 
element of profit.
    For Tecmar, we calculated an EP for all of Tecmar's sales because 
the merchandise was sold directly by Tecmar to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties. We 
also added the amount for duty drawback to the starting price, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Los Fiordos

    We calculated an EP for all of Los Fiordos' sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Los Fiordos to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties. 
We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting 
price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act.

Mainstream

    We calculated an EP for all of Mainstream's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Mainstream to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. 
We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting 
price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act.

Marine Harvest

    We calculated a CEP for Marine Harvest's sales, all of which were 
made by an affiliated reseller in the United States after the date of 
importation. We made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
include inland freight, international freight, U.S. duties and U.S. 
brokerage. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments and 
rebates from the starting price, in accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and added duty drawback, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B).
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including commissions and other direct selling expenses (credit, 
inspection association fees, and brokerage, handling and document 
processing costs). We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

[[Page 51186]]

Multiexport

    During the POR, Multiexport made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Multiexport to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
prior to importation. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the 
account of the producer/exporter by an affiliated reseller in the 
United States after the date of importation.
    We made deductions from the starting price for rebates, as well as 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
These include inland freight, international freight, and U.S. duties. 
We also added the amounts for delivery revenues and for duty drawback, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we 
also deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (including credit expenses and 
miscellaneous direct selling expenses), and indirect selling expenses 
incurred by the affiliated reseller in the United States. We also 
deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 
772(d)(3) of the Act.

Ocean Horizons

    We calculated a CEP for Ocean Horizon's sales, all of which were 
made by an affiliated reseller in the United States after the date of 
importation. We made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
include inland freight, international freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, and U.S. duties. We also added duty drawback, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
also deducted from the starting price those direct selling expenses 
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States (credit and inspection association fees). We also deducted from 
CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.

Pacifico Sur

    We calculated an EP for all of Pacifico Sur's U.S. sales because 
the merchandise was sold directly by Pacifico Sur to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also added 
the amount for duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act.

Patagonia

    We calculated an EP for all of Patagonia's U.S. sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Patagonia to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also added 
the amount for duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act.

Pesca Chile

    During the POR, Pesca Chile made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Pesca Chile to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
prior to importation. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the 
account of the producer/exporter by an affiliated reseller in the 
United States after the date of importation.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland 
freight, inland insurance, international freight, warehousing, U.S. 
brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also deducted the amount for billing 
adjustments and rebates from the starting price, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
also deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including commissions and other direct selling expenses (credit, 
inspection association fees, and bank charges). We also deducted from 
CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.

Robinson Crusoe

    We calculated an EP for all of Robinson Crusoe's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Robinson Crusoe to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
inland insurance, international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, 
and U.S. duties. We also added the amount for duty drawback to the 
starting price, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market 
sales and U.S. sales by Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, and Multiexport we 
determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in Chile 
permitted a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise 
to the United States pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 
because the quantity of sales in the home market was more than five 
percent of the quantity of sales to the U.S. market for each of these 
respondents. Accordingly, for those three respondents we based NV on 
home market sales.
    Respondents Andes, Friosur, Invertec, Los Fiordos, Mainstream, 
Marine Harvest, Pesca Chile, and Robinson Crusoe did not have viable 
home markets, as defined above. Therefore, for these respondents, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we based NV on the 
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption 
in each respondent's largest third-country market. For Andes, Friosur, 
Invertec, Mainstream, Marine Harvest and Pesca Chile, the largest 
third-country market is Brazil; for Robinson Crusoe, the largest third-
country market is Mexico; and for Los Fiordos, the largest third 
country market is Canada.
    Respondents Ocean Horizons, Pacifico Sur and Patagonia did not have 
any viable comparison market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(e) of the Act, we based NV for these respondents on CV.
    Neither Tecmar nor Linao had viable home markets. In addition, 
prior to its date of affiliation with Tecmar, Linao did not have a 
viable comparison market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e) 
of the Act, we based NV for Linao, for the period July 1, 2000 until 
November 14, 2000, on CV. Tecmar's largest third-country market was 
Argentina. We used Tecmar's sales to Argentina for the purposes of 
calculating NV for Tecmar from July 1, 2000 until November 14, 2001. We 
also used Tecmar's sales to Argentina for the

[[Page 51187]]

collapsed entity, Linao/Tecmar, after November 15, 2001.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on a timely allegation filed by L.R. Enterprises, we 
initiated cost of production (COP) investigations of Multiexport, 
Robinson Crusoe, Linao and Tecmar, and Pesca Chile to determine whether 
sales were made at prices below the COP. See Memorandum From Case 
Analysts to Gary Taverman, dated January 23, 2002. In addition, we 
initiated a cost of production investigation of Marine Harvest to 
determine whether sales were made at price below the COP. See 
Memorandum From Case Analyst to Gary Taverman, dated February 8, 
2002.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On October 30, 2001, L.R. Enterprises filed a cost 
allegation with respect to Marine Harvest. On January 4, 2002, the 
Department determined that this allegation was inadequate. See 
Letter From Constance Handley to Michael Coursey, dated January 4, 
2002. However, L.R. Enterprises submitted a revised cost allegation 
on January 7, 2002, which the Department deemed adequate. As such, 
the Department initiated a cost of production investigation on 
February 8, 2002.
    On November 26, 2001, L.R. Enterprises also filed a cost 
allegation with respect to Mainstream. On January 23, 2002, the 
Department determined that this allegation was inadequate, and did 
not initiate a cost investigation with respect to that respondent. 
See Memorandum From Case Analysts to Gary Taverman, dated January 
23, 2002. On February 7, 2002, L.R. Enterprises submitted a letter 
stating that the Department's decision with regard to Mainstream was 
based on a flawed analysis. On April 17, 2002, the Department again 
determined that the allegation of L.R. Enterprises was inadequate 
and did not initiate a cost investigation with respect to 
Mainstream. See Memorandum from Case Analyst to Bernard Carreau, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 
17, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the calculation of the 
final results of the second administrative review of Eicosal, we had 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the 
foreign like product by Eicosal had been made at prices below the COP 
during the period of this review. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we also initiated a COP investigation regarding 
home market sales by Eicosal.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, 
fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied 
on the submitted COPs except in the specific instances noted below, 
where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.

Eicosal

    We revised financial expenses to reflect changes determined at 
verification.

Linao and Tecmar

    We revised G&A and financial expenses to reflect changes determined 
at verification.

Marine Harvest

    We revised the cost of production, variable cost of manufacture and 
total cost of manufacture reported in Schedule A for two forms/trims, 
as determined at verification.

Pacifico Sur

    We used the revised, verified costs presented at verification.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    As required by section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the adjusted 
weighted-average COP for each respondent subject to a cost 
investigation to the comparison-market sales prices of the foreign like 
product, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP or revised COP, as appropriate, to 
the comparison-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
taxes, rebates, commissions, and other direct and indirect selling 
expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP 
and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) 
of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average 
COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the 
product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We disregarded comparison market sales of 
Eicosal, Linao and Tecmar, Marine Harvest, Multiexport, and Robinson 
Crusoe.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We determined price-based NVs for respondent companies as follows. 
For all respondents, we made adjustments for any differences in 
packing, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, and we 
deducted movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the 
Act. In addition, where applicable, 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, as well as 
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made 
adjustments, pursuant to 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).
    Company-specific adjustments are described below.

Andes

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: foreign inland freight and customs brokerage. We 
made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for 
third-country market sales (credit, association fees, Certificate of 
Origin and Health Certificate fees, and bank charges) and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and bank charges). 
In addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S. 
packing expenses.

Cultivos Marinos

    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland 
freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit). We also deducted home market packing expenses and 
added U.S. packing expenses.

Eicosal

    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland 
freight and billing adjustments. We made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and bank 
charges). We also deducted home market packing expenses and added U.S. 
packing expenses.

[[Page 51188]]

Friosur

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We deducted billing adjustments and 
adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, 
international freight and brokerage and handling. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (including credit) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (including credit and quality control expenses). We also added 
the amount for third-country duty drawback to the starting price. In 
addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S. 
packing expenses and third-country duty drawback.

Invertec

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight, 
customs brokerage and special handling expenses. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (including commissions, credit, certification 
expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(including credit). We also added the amount for third-country duty 
drawback to the starting price. In addition, we deducted third-country 
packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses and third-country duty 
drawback.

Linao and Tecmar

    For Tecmar, from June 30, 2000 through November 14, 2001 and for 
the collapsed entity Linao/Tecmar, we based third-country market prices 
on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Argentina. We 
adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, 
international freight and brokerage and handling. We also added the 
amount for third-country duty drawback to the starting price. In 
addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S. 
packing expenses. For comparisons to EP transactions in the United 
States, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country market sales (including credit, quality 
control, and health certification) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (including credit, quality control, and health certification). 
For comparisons to CEP transactions, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on third-country market 
sales.
    Linao did not have a viable home market or third-country sales 
prior to its affiliation with Tecmar. As discussed below, we calculated 
CV for Linao's NV from July 1, 2000 to November 14, 2001.

Los Fiordos

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight, and 
brokerage charges. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, association 
fees and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, 
association fees and bank charges). We also added the amount for third-
country duty drawback to the starting price. In addition, we deducted 
third-country packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses and 
third-country duty drawback.

Mainstream

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight, 
customs fees and airport handling charges. We made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market 
sales (credit, sanitary certification fees, association fees, bank 
charges, loan guarantee fees, and other direct selling expenses) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and bank 
charges).

Marine Harvest

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for inland freight, a 
movement expense. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, inspection 
association fees, and brokerage, handling and document processing 
costs). We also added third-country duty drawback to the starting 
price. In addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and 
added U.S. packing expenses.

Multiexport

    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland 
freight. We also deducted home market packing expenses and added U.S. 
packing expenses. For comparison to EP transactions, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home 
market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit). 
For comparisons to CEP transactions, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales.

Ocean Horizons

    Ocean Horizons did not have a viable home market or third-country 
sales during the POR. As discussed below, we calculated CV for Ocean 
Horizons' NV.

Pacifico Sur

    Pacifico Sur did not have a viable home market or third-country 
sales during the POR. As discussed below, we calculated CV for Pacifico 
Sur's NV.

Patagonia

    Patagonia did not have a viable home market or third-country sales 
during the POR. As discussed below, we calculated CV for Patagonia's 
NV.

Pesca Chile

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: foreign inland freight and inland insurance. In 
addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S. 
packing expenses and third-country duty drawback. For comparisons to EP 
transactions, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for third-country market sales (including 
commissions, credit, association fees, and bank charges) and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses (including commissions, credit, 
association fees, bank charges, and customs expenses). For comparisons 
to CEP transactions, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred on third-country market sales.

Robinson Crusoe

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Mexico. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: foreign inland freight and inland insurance. We made 
COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for 
third-country market sales (including credit, accounts receivable 
insurance, association fees, and quality certification inspection 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (including credit, 
accounts receivable insurance, association fees, and quality 
certification inspection expenses). In addition, we deducted third-
country packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses and third-
country duty drawback.

[[Page 51189]]

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For those sales for which we could not determine NV based on 
comparison-market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of 
a comparable product in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP or 
CEP, to CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based 
on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign 
like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing. We calculated CV based on 
the methodology described in the COP section, above. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we used the actual amounts incurred 
and realized by each 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 to calculate SG&A expenses and 
profit. For Linao, from July 1, 2000 through November 14, 2001, and for 
Ocean Horizons, Pacifico Sur, and Patagonia, which had no comparison 
market sales, we calculated CV following the same methodology, except 
that we relied on the weighted-average SG&A and profit ratios of the 
three respondents (Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal and Multiexport) that had 
a viable home market, consistent with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the 
Act.
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS 
differences, pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Company-specific 
adjustments are described below.

Andes

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country market sales (credit, association fees, 
Certificate of Origin and Health Certificate fees, and bank charges) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and 
bank charges).

Cultivos Marinos

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit) and third-country duty drawback.

Eicosal

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit expense, association fees, and bank charges).

Friosur

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (including credit and quality control 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (including credit and 
quality control expenses).

Linao and Tecmar

    For Linao, from July 1, 2000 through November 14, 2001, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting the weighted-average direct selling expenses 
incurred by the three respondents that had a viable home market during 
the period and, for comparison to EP transactions, adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit, quality control, and health certification 
expenses).
    For Tecmar, and for the collapsed entity Linao/Tecmar, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (credit, quality control, and health certification 
expenses). For comparison to EP transactions, we added U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit, quality control, and health certification 
expenses).

Los Fiordos

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country sales (credit, association fees and bank 
charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association 
fees and bank charges).

Mainstream

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country market sales (credit, sanitary certification 
fees, association fees, bank charges, loan guarantee fees, and other 
direct selling expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit, association fees, and bank charges).

Marine Harvest

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country sales (credit, inspection association fees, 
and brokerage, handling and document processing costs).

Multiexport

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit) for comparison to EP transactions in the United 
States.

Ocean Horizons

    We made COS adjustments deducting the weighted-average direct 
selling expenses incurred by the three respondents that had a viable 
home market during the POR.

Pacifico Sur

    We made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(including credit, inspection expenses, airline service charges and 
food and drug charges) and deducting the weighted-average direct 
selling expenses incurred by the three respondents that had a viable 
home market during the POR.

Patagonia

    We made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(including credit and inspection expenses) and deducting the weighted-
average direct selling expenses incurred by the three respondents that 
had a viable home market during the POR.

Pesca Chile

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country sales (credit, commissions, association fees 
and bank charges). For comparison to EP transactions, we added U.S. 
direct selling expenses (credit, commissions, association fees and bank 
charges).

Robinson Crusoe

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country sales (credit, accounts receivable 
insurance, association fees, and quality certification inspection 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, including credit, 
accounts receivable insurance, association fees, and quality 
certification inspection expenses.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP transactions. The NV level of 
trade is that of the starting-price sale in the comparison market or, 
when the NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A 
expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the 
level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to 
the importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP transaction, we examine stages in the marketing process 
and selling functions

[[Page 51190]]

along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade, and the difference affects price 
comparability with U.S. sales, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes 
From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002).
    To apply these guidelines in this review, we obtained information 
from each respondent about the marketing stages involved in its 
reported U.S. and comparison-market sales, including a description of 
the selling activities performed by the respondent for each of its 
channels of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and 
comparison market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected 
in the starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we 
considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the 
deduction of expenses and profit pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. 
Generally, if the claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions 
and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of 
sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
    In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for each respondent, we 
took into account the specific customer types, channels of 
distribution, and selling practices of each respondent. We found that, 
for all respondents, the fact pattern was virtually identical. Sales to 
both the U.S. and comparison markets were made to distributors, 
retailers, and, less commonly, to further-processors.
    In this review, only three companies, Pesca Chile, Tecmar and Linao 
requested LOT adjustments. For each of the respondents, with the 
exception of Pesca Chile, we found that there was a single level of 
trade in the United States and a single, identical, level of trade in 
the comparison market. Therefore, it was not necessary to make any 
level of LOT adjustments or CEP offset adjustments. The companies 
requesting an LOT adjustment are discussed below, for all other 
companies, a discussion of our LOT analysis is included in their 
respective analysis memorandums.

Pesca Chile

    For all its third country and EP sales, the selling functions Pesca 
Chile performed for its different customer categories and channels of 
distribution were virtually identical. Therefore, we found the EP and 
home market levels of trade to be the same and made no level-of-trade 
adjustment.
    With regard to CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit 
covered in section 772(d) of the Act: customer development, sales 
negotiation, invoicing and collections, arranging customs clearance and 
handling any claims. After we deducted the expenses and profit covered 
in section 772(d), the NV level of trade was more remote from Pesca 
Chile than that of its U.S. sales through affiliate Pescanova, Inc., as 
adjusted. In addition, there is only one level of trade in the third-
country market and we have no other appropriate information on which to 
determine if there is a pattern of consistent price differences between 
the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the level 
of trade of the export transactions. As a result, we are granting a CEP 
offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Linao and Tecmar

    During the POR, Linao claimed a CEP offset for its sales through an 
unaffiliated consignment broker. During verification, the Department 
noted that Linao does not perform fewer selling activities for U.S. 
sales made through the consignment broker than for its comparison-
market sales. See Verification of the Sales and Cost Responses of 
Cultivadora de Salmones Linao Ltda. and Salmones Tecmar S.A. in the 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Fresh Atlantic Salmon 
from Chile From Case Analyst to Gary Taverman, dated July 31, 2002. 
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily decided to deny Linao's 
request for a CEP offset. For a further discussion of this issue, which 
contains proprietary information, see the Analysis Memorandum for Linao 
and Tecmar.

Preliminary Determination Not To Revoke Order

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or part'' an antidumping 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While 
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must 
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure 
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In 
determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the 
Secretary will consider: (A) Whether one or more exporters or producers 
covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than NV for 
a period of at least three consecutive years; (B) Whether, for any 
exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to 
have sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, the exporter or 
producer agrees in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, 
as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the 
Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the 
revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and (C) 
Whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is 
otherwise necessary to offset dumping.
    The Department's regulation requires, inter alia, that a company 
requesting revocation submit the following: (1) A certification that 
the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the 
current review period and that the company will not sell at less than 
NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming 
the basis of the receipt of such a request; and (3) an agreement that 
the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be 
selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(i) See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping 
Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 
(January 6, 2000). Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, Mainstream, and Pacifico 
Sur each submitted a certification to the effect that for a consecutive 
three-year period, including the current review period, it sold the 
subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than normal 
value and that it would continue to do so in the future. Therefore, 
because we have determined that these respondents satisfy the 
requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b), we preliminarily determine to revoke 
in part the antidumping order with respect to these respondents. 
Although Linao and Tecmar each submitted this certification also, we 
have preliminarily calculated an antidumping margin of 1.32 percent for

[[Page 51191]]

these companies in this review and these companies do not satisfy the 
requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b).
    As fully explained in the memorandum concerning the Preliminary 
Determination to Revoke in Part the Antidumping Duty Order, dated July 
31, 2002, we have also preliminarily determined not to revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to Marine Harvest. This memorandum 
is on file in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 1999, 
through June 30, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Exporter/manufacturer                   average margin
                                                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andes...................................................         \1\0.16
Cultivos Marinos........................................         \1\0.10
Eicosal.................................................        \1\ 0.44
Friosur.................................................        \1\ 0.18
Invertec................................................            0.00
Linao...................................................            1.32
Los Fiordos.............................................            1.62
Mainstream..............................................        \1\ 0.05
Marine Harvest..........................................        \1\ 0.11
Multiexport.............................................            0.00
Ocean Horizons..........................................        \1\ 0.08
Pacifico Sur............................................            0.00
Patagonia...............................................        \1\ 0.01
Pesca Chile.............................................            1.18
Robinson Crusoe.........................................        \1\ 0.06
Tecmar..................................................           1.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ De Minimis.

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 
to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or 
comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the 
argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate 
it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department 
with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on 
diskette. 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 these preliminary results.

Assessment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We calculated importer-
specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total 
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the 
total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that 
importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for companies 
listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de 
minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 4.57 
percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    Because Linao and Tecmar were collapsed for only part of the POR, 
for the purposes of calculating a duty-deposit rate for the collapsed 
entity, we have calculated a weighted-average of the rates for both 
companies during the pre-acquisition period with the rate calculated 
for the combined entity. For the purposes of assessment, we will rely 
on the period-specific results.
    This notice 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 entities 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-19994 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P