Preserved Mushrooms From

Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Second Review)

Publication 4135 April 2010

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Acting Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator

Timothy McCarty, Industry Analyst

Marc Bernstein, Attorney

Steven Hudgens, Statistician

James McClure, Supervisor Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Preserved Mushrooms From 

Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Second Review)

Publication 4135 April 2010
 
CONTENTS

Page

Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Additional and dissenting views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Separate views of Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Separate and concurring views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Information obtained in the second five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The original investigations and first five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to

affected domestic producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Commerce’s scope rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Description and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Physical characteristics, processing operations, and end uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

The industry in Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

The industry in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

The industry in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Antidumping and countervailing duty orders in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by

asterisks. 

i

 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on preserved

mushrooms from Indonesia would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Second Review)

PRESERVED MUSHROOMS FROM CHILE, CHINA, INDIA, AND INDONESIA

DETERMINATIONS

 On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms

from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

BACKGROUND

 The Commission instituted these reviews on October 1, 2009 (74 F.R. 50818) and determined on

January 4, 2010 that it would conduct expedited reviews (75 F.R. 3756, January 22, 2010). 

 1

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson determines that revocation of the antidumping order on preserved

mushrooms from Indonesia would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R.

Pearson. He joins section I through III.D. of these Views and section IV except as indicated.

 2

 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144 (Nov. 1998)

(“Original Chile Determination”).

 3

 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3159 (Feb. 1999) (“Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations”).

 4

 63 Fed. Reg. 66529 (Dec. 2, 1998).

 5

 64 Fed. Reg. 8308-12 (Feb. 19, 1999).

 6

 68 Fed. Reg. 39521 (July 2, 2003).

 7

 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Review),

USITC Pub. 3731 (Oct. 2004) (“First Five-Year Review Determinations”). Commissioner Pearson made a negative

determination on subject imports from Indonesia. As explained further below, individual Commissioners cumulated

different combinations of subject imports.

 8

 69 Fed. Reg. 67308 (Nov. 17, 2004).

 9

 74 Fed. Reg. 50818 (Oct. 1, 2009).

 10 The Coalition was the petitioner in the original investigations. Each of the four members of the

Coalition is a domestic producer of preserved mushrooms. 

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved

mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1998, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of less than fair value (LTFV) imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile.2

In February 1999, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured

by reason of LTFV imports of preserved mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia.3

 The U.S.

Department of Commerce (Commerce) issued antidumping duty orders with respect to imports from

Chile on December 2, 1998,4

 and with respect to imports from China, India, and Indonesia on February

19, 1999.5

 Commerce subsequently revoked the order with respect to imports from Indonesia in part.6

In October 2004, the Commission completed its first five-year reviews on the antidumping orders

on preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia. After conducting full reviews, the

Commission determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.7

Commerce, which had previously made affirmative determinations on likely dumping, issued a

continuation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and

Indonesia on November 8, 2004.8

The Commission instituted the instant reviews on October 1, 2009.9 The sole response to the

notice of institution was filed by the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade and its individual

members L.K. Bowman Co., Monterey Mushrooms Inc., the Mushroom Co., and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc.

(collectively “the Coalition”).10 On January 4, 2010, the Commission determined that, for each of the

reviews, the domestic interested party response was adequate and the respondent interested party response
 11 Explanation of Commission Determination of Adequacy, reprinted in Confidential Report (CR)/Public Report

(PR), App. B.

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 14 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (December 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

 15 74 Fed. Reg. 67170, 67170-71 (Dec. 18, 2009). This is the same scope definition that was applicable in the

first five-year reviews.

4

was inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or any other

circumstances warranting full reviews, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews.11

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”12 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which

is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.”13 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.14

The Department of Commerce has defined the scope of the imported merchandise subject to the

antidumping duty orders under review as follows:

The “preserved mushrooms” covered under the orders are the species Agaricus bisporus

and Agaricus bitorquis. “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been

prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing and cutting. These

mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers, including but not limited to cans or

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or

butter sauce. Included within the scope of the order are “brined” mushrooms, which are

presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further

processing. Also included within the scope of the orders, as of June 19, 2000, are

marinated, acidified, or pickled mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid.

Excluded from the scope of the orders are the following: (1) all other species of

mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including

“refrigerated” or “quick blanched” mushrooms; (3) dried mushrooms; and (4) frozen

mushrooms.15

In the original investigations, the Commission found a single domestic like product coextensive

with the scope definition. It rejected arguments that fresh mushrooms should be included in the domestic

like product, finding that there were significant differences between fresh and preserved mushrooms with

respect to appearance, flavor, shelf life, channels of distribution, production methods, customer
 16 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 4-5. 

 17 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 5-6. 

 18 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 5.

 19 Coalition Response to Notice of Institution at 26; see also Coalition Comments at 3-4.

 20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing

the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 21 “Raw agricultural product” is defined as any farm or fishery product. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(iv).

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(i).

 23 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(ii).

5

perceptions, and price.16 It rejected arguments that marinated mushrooms should be included in the

domestic like product, finding significant differences between the end uses of marinated mushrooms and

preserved mushrooms, very limited interchangeability between the two products, and differences in

producer and customer perceptions and price.17

In the first five-year reviews, no party submitted any argument that the Commission should

define the domestic like product differently than it did in the original investigations. The Commission

again defined a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope definition.18

In its response to the notice of institution, the Coalition stated that it agreed with the domestic like

product definition the Commission adopted in its prior determinations.19 The record in these expedited

reviews provides no basis for us to call into question the Commission’s previous definition of the

domestic like product. Accordingly, we again define a single domestic like product coextensive with the

scope definition.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”20 In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic

production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic

merchant market. 

In light of our definition of the domestic like product, there are two domestic industry issues in

these five-year reviews. The first concerns whether growers of fresh mushrooms should be included in

the domestic industry pursuant to the statutory grower/processor provision codified at section 771(4)(E)

of the Act. The second concerns whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude certain producers of

preserved mushrooms from the domestic industry pursuant to the statutory related parties provision.

1. Grower/Processor Provision

In cases involving processed agricultural products, section 771(4)(E) of the Act authorizes the

Commission to include growers’ agricultural input within the domestic industry producing the processed

agricultural product if the processed agricultural product is produced from the raw product21 through a

single continuous line of production, and there is a substantial coincidence of economic interest between

the growers and processors based upon relevant economic factors.22 Under the Act, the processed product

is considered to be processed from the raw product in a single continuous line of production if the raw

agricultural product is substantially or completely devoted to the production of the processed agricultural

product, and the processed agricultural product is produced substantially or completely from the raw

product.23

The Commission did not include growers of fresh mushrooms in the domestic industry in either

the original investigations or the first five-year reviews. In each of these proceedings, the Commission
 24 See 19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(E)(i)(I).

 25 The percentage was 23 percent in the original investigations. Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144

at 7. It was 16.9 percent in the first five-year reviews. First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at

6.

 26 CR at I-12 n.39, PR at I-10 n.39.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 28 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party are as follows:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the

firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis-à-vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion

of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.

See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d

809 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 29 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 7-9; First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub.

3731 at 6-8.

 30 Specifically, in its response to the notice of institution, the Coalition states that ***. Coalition Response to

Notice of Institution at 19. *** is a member of the Coalition and was the *** largest U.S. producer of preserved

mushrooms in 2008. Id. at 21. Additionally, ***. Id. at 19. ***, while not a member of the Coalition, did provide

the Coalition with certain firm-specific data for inclusion in the response to the notice of institution. These data

indicate that *** U.S. producer of preserved mushrooms in 2008. Id. at 21. The record does not contain any

information about the quantity of each firm’s subject imports, or the firms’ reasons for importing subject

merchandise.

6

determined that the statutory requirement that “the processed agricultural product [be] produced from the

raw agricultural product through a single continuous line of production” was not satisfied.24 This was

because only a small percentage of fresh mushrooms was processed in any manner.25

It remains the case that only a small percentage of fresh mushrooms produced in the United States

are processed in any manner. Eighty-five percent of the yield of the 2008-09 domestic mushroom crop

was sold as fresh mushrooms, and the remaining 15 percent was processed.26 Consequently, as in the

original investigations and first reviews, the raw product is not substantially or completely devoted to the

production of the processed product. Thus, the requirement of the statutory grower/processor provision

that there be a single continuous line of production is not satisfied. Accordingly, we do not include

growers of fresh mushrooms in the domestic industry.

2. Related Parties

Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to

exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject

merchandise or which are themselves importers.27 Exclusion of such a producer is within the

Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each case.28 In the original investigations and

the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude

any related party.29

The limited information available in these expedited reviews indicates that two U.S. producers of

preserved mushrooms have imported subject merchandise since 2004.30 We conclude that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude either of these firms from the domestic industry pursuant to the

related parties provision. Each of the related parties has a substantial presence in the industry, the record

contains limited new information concerning the circumstances and quantity of importation, and ***
 31 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 13-14.

 32 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 15.

 33 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, USITC Pub. 3159 at 10.

 34 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, USITC Pub. 3159 at 10.

 35 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 10-13.

 36 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 13-16. Commissioner Lane found that there was

a likely reasonable overlap of competition between imports from all four subject countries, and cumulated subject

imports from all four subject countries.

 37 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 17-18. Commissioners Lane and Koplan did not

exercise their discretion not to cumulate based on differences in likely conditions of competition.

 38 As previously stated, Commissioner Lane cumulated imports from all four subject countries. Commissioner

Koplan used the same three cumulation combinations that the Commission used in the original determinations.

7

importations were apparently limited in temporal scope ***. Accordingly, we define the domestic

industry to encompass all U.S. producers of preserved mushrooms.

III. CUMULATION

A. Prior Proceedings

In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition between

the domestic like product and imports from all four subject countries. It also found a reasonable overlap

of competition among all subject imports except those from Chile and Indonesia. The predominant share

of subject imports from Chile was sold to food service users, with most of the rest being distributed to

industrial users. Meanwhile, the overwhelming share of subject imports from Indonesia were sold to

retail users, with a small share entering the food service channel. There were no common purchasers of

mushrooms from Chile and Indonesia, and the Commission concluded that the record indicated only a

minimal overlap of channels of distribution between subject imports from Chile and Indonesia.31

Accordingly, for its original determination on subject imports from Chile, the Commission cumulated

subject imports from Chile, China, and India.32 For its original determinations on subject imports from

China and India, the Commission cumulated imports from all four subject countries.33 For its original

determination on subject imports from Indonesia, the Commission cumulated subject imports from China,

India, and Indonesia.34

In its first five-year review determinations, the Commission found that subject imports from each

of the four subject countries would not be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry if the orders were revoked.35 The Commission found a likely reasonable overlap of competition

between the domestic like product and imports from all four subject countries, and with respect to all

subject country combinations other than Chile/Indonesia. It found that there was not a likely reasonable

overlap in channels of distribution between subject imports from Chile and Indonesia for much the same

reasons it did not find a reasonable overlap in its original determinations.36 Based on the record in the

first reviews, the Commission exercised its discretion not to cumulate subject imports from Indonesia

with those from China or India due to differences in current and likely conditions of competition.37

Consequently, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India for the

determinations on those three countries and did not cumulate subject imports from Indonesia with those

from any other subject country.38
 39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, __ F.3d ___, App. No. 2009-1234, Slip

Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of competition

in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States,

475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the

types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in fiveyear reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

 41 See 74 Fed. Reg. 50776 (Oct. 1, 2009).

8

B. Legal Standard

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Act provides as follows:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.39

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which are

governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.40 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate,

however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the subject

imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market, and

imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these reviews, because all reviews were

initiated on the same day: October 1, 2009.41 We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise

our discretion to cumulate the subject imports as follows: (1) whether imports from any of the subject

countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on

the domestic industry; (2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among

imports of preserved mushrooms from the subject countries and the domestic like product; and (3) other

considerations, such as whether there are similarities and differences in the likely conditions of

competition under which subject imports are likely to compete in the U.S. market for preserved
 42 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in

this section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (July 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp.2d

1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip Op. 2009-1234 (Fed Cir. April 7, 2010).

 43 As explained below, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert apply a different analytical framework in determining

whether other considerations justify declining to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports.

 44 Coalition Comments at 11-15.

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 46 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

 47 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 18-20; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 13-15, 18-20; First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 25, 30.

 48 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144, Table IV-1.

 49 INV-V-089, Table VII-1 (Nov. 5, 1998) (EDIS Doc. 415595).

 50 CR/PR, Table I-2.

9

mushrooms.42 43 The Coalition contends that the Commission should exercise its discretion to cumulate

imports from all four subject countries.44

C. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.45 Neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.46 With respect to this provision, the

Commission generally considers the likely volume of subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

Based on the record, we do not find that imports from any of the subject countries are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the orders or the

finding. Our analysis for each of the subject countries takes into account the nature of the product and the

behavior of subject imports in the original investigations. We recall that in both the original

investigations and the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that price was an important factor in

purchasing decisions. It further found that the subject imports, regardless of source, were at least

moderate substitutes for the domestic like product.47

Chile. In the original investigations, the volume of subject imports from Chile declined from 10.7

million pounds in 1995 to 7.1 million pounds in 1996 and then to 5.4 million pounds in 1997, but was

higher in interim (January-June) 1998 than in interim 1997.48 During the original period of investigation,

*** of exports of subject merchandise from Chile was directed to the U.S. market.49 In 1998, there were

6.5 million pounds of subject imports from Chile. Since then, there have been no imports of subject

merchandise from Chile.50 United Nations data indicate that exports of canned mushrooms from Chile

have fluctuated in recent years, but that export levels have generally remained below those reported
 51 CR at I-27, PR at I-22.

 52 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-1. These volumes include

imports transshipped from Hong Kong.

 53 CR/PR, Table I-2.

 54 CR at I-28-29, PR at I-23-24.

 55 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-1.

 56 CR/PR, Table I-2.

 57 CR/PR, Table I-4.

 58 CR/PR, Table I-4.

 59 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-1.

10

during the original period of investigation.51 We find that the cessation of subject imports from Chile

after 1998 was a result of the order. We further find that subject imports from Chile are likely to return to

the U.S. market if the order is revoked in light of the importance of the U.S. market to the Chilean

industry during the original period of investigation and the industry’s apparent inability since imposition

of the order to export to other markets quantities of subject goods comparable to those that previously had

been exported to the United States. We consequently do not find that subject imports from Chile would

likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order is revoked.

China. In the original investigations, subject import volume from China declined from 75.6

million pounds in 1995 to 72.8 million pounds in 1996, and then to 71.1 million pounds in 1997, but was

higher in interim 1998 than in interim 1997.52 Subject import volume from China was 48.0 million

pounds in 1998. Subject import volume from China then declined sharply to 320,000 pounds in 1999. 

Volume subsequently increased in the next five years, reaching 61.0 million pounds in 2004. Volume

then declined in the next two years, before increasing to 78.8 million pounds in 2007 and 83.5 million

pounds in 2008.53 United Nations data indicate that between 1999 and 2007 exports of canned

mushrooms from China more than doubled.54 In light of the large quantities of subject imports from

China currently in the U.S. market, the export orientation of the Chinese industry, the substitutability of

subject imports and the domestic like product, and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, we do

not find that subject imports from China would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry if the order is revoked.

India. In the original investigations, the volume of subject imports from India declined from 6.0

million pounds in 1995 to 4.4 million pounds in 1996, increased to 9.9 million pounds in 1997, and was

higher in interim 1998 than in interim 1997.55 The volume of subject imports from India was 12.6 million

pounds in 1998. In 1999, the volume of subject imports from India jumped to 32.0 million pounds. 

Imports from India peaked in 2000 at 34.4 million pounds, declined the next three years, rose to 33.7

million pounds in 2004, and then declined irregularly through the remainder of the period for which data

have been collected. Subject import volume from India in 2008 was 20.6 million pounds.56 Available

data indicate that the Indian industry’s exports of preserved mushrooms to all markets were greater in

2008 than for any other year since 1995 for which data are available.57 These data indicate that for every

year from 1995 to 2008 for which data are available, the United States has been India’s *** export

market.58 In light of the appreciable quantities of subject imports from India currently in the U.S. market,

the heavy reliance of Indian producers on the U.S. market, the substitutability of subject imports and the

domestic like product, and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, we do not find that subject

imports from India would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order

is revoked.

Indonesia. During the original period of investigation, the volume of subject imports from

Indonesia declined from 30.8 million pounds in 1995 to 26.9 million pounds in 1996, increased to 31.8

million pounds in 1997, and was lower in interim 1998 than in interim 1997.59 The volume of subject

imports from Indonesia was 26.7 million pounds in 1998. It increased in 1999 to 29.1 million pounds,

and then declined through 2003, when it reached *** million pounds. Some of the declines were
 60 CR/PR, Table I-2. 

 61 CR/PR, Table I-5.

 62 CR/PR, Table I-5.

 63 Commissioner Lane does not join the remainder of section III of the opinion. See her Separate Views.

 64 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from

different countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 65 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp.

at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been

investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761 to 762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 66 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

 67 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 11-12; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

(continued...)

11

attributable to the revocation of the order with respect to PT Zeta Agro in February 2002, after which time

imports from that firm became nonsubject. The volume of subject imports from Indonesia has fluctuated

between *** and *** pounds during the most recent five years for which data are available; volume in

2008 was *** pounds.60 Available data indicate that Indonesian subject producers’ exports of preserved

mushrooms to all markets were greater in 2008 than for any other year since 1995 for which data are

available.61 These data indicate that for every year from 1995 to 2008 for which data are available, the

United States has been Indonesia’s *** export market.62 In light of the appreciable quantities of subject

imports from Indonesia currently in the U.S. market, the heavy reliance of Indonesian producers on the

U.S. market, the substitutability of subject imports and the domestic like product, and the importance of

price in purchasing decisions, we do not find that subject imports from Indonesia would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order is revoked.63

D. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.64 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.65 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market.66 We observe that the record of these expedited reviews contains very little new

information about either the subject industries or the characteristics of the subject imports that have been

present in the U.S. market since the period examined in the first five-year reviews. Consequently, most of

the information available is from the original investigations and the first five-year reviews.

Fungibility. In the original investigations, the Commission found that subject imports from all

four subject countries were fungible with both the domestic like product and with each other. This

finding relied on market participants’ reports that preserved mushrooms from the various sources were

interchangeable. It also relied on the fact that there were purchaser overlaps encompassing all subject

country combinations except Chile-Indonesia and India-Indonesia.67
 67(...continued)

USITC Pub. 3159 at 7-8.

 68 INV-BB-123, Tables II-4-6 (Oct. 4, 2004) (EDIS Doc. 415599).

 69 INV-BB-123, Table II-3.

 70 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 12.

 71 INV-BB-123 at II-3.

 72 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, confidential opinion at 10 (EDIS Doc. 415597).

 73 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, USITC Pub. 3159 at 8.

 74 INV-BB-123, Table F-1.

 75 INV-BB-123, Table F-1.

12

The most recent information available concerning fungibility is from the first five-year reviews,

in which a majority of purchasers and U.S. producers reported that U.S.-produced preserved mushrooms

were always interchangeable with imports from each of the subject countries. A majority of U.S.

importers reported that U.S.-produced preserved mushrooms were always or frequently interchangeable

with imports from each of the subject countries. For each possible subject country combination, a

majority of each type of market participant reported that imports from different subject countries were

always or frequently interchangeable.68

Purchasers were asked in the first five-year reviews to compare preserved mushrooms from

different sources on 22 factors, three of which (pertaining to discounts offered, extension of credit, and

lowest price) were price-related. There were no comparisons involving subject imports from Chile and no

comparisons of Indian product with Indonesian product. In every other possible combination of the

domestic like product and subject imports, or between imports from different subject countries, a majority

or plurality of purchasers reported that the products were comparable in at least 16 of the 19 non-price

factors.69

Geographic Overlap. In the original investigations, the Commission found that the domestic like

product and imports from each subject country were sold nationwide.70 The most recent information

available concerning this factor is from the period examined during the first five-year reviews. During

that period, six of seven responding U.S. producers and 11 of 18 responding importers reported selling

their product nationwide.71

Channels of Distribution. As discussed above, in the original investigations the Commission

found that channels of distribution did not overlap for subject imports from Chile and Indonesia, but did

overlap for all other possible subject country combinations. The data provided in the confidential version

of the Commission’s views indicate that, during the original period of investigation, *** percent of

subject imports from Chile were distributed to food service users, *** percent were distributed to

industrial users, and *** percent were distributed to retail users.72 By contrast, *** percent of subject

imports from Indonesia were distributed in the retail channel of distribution, and the remaining ***

percent entered the food service channel.73

The most recent empirical information concerning channels of distribution was collected during

the first five-year reviews. During the period examined in those reviews, U.S. producers had a significant

presence in all three channels of distribution. The annual percentage of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments to

the industrial channel ranged from *** percent to *** percent, shipments to the food service channel

ranged from *** percent to *** percent, and shipments to the retail channel ranged from *** percent to

*** percent.74

Subject imports from Chile were not in the U.S. market during the period examined during the

first reviews. The record from the first five-year reviews indicated that distribution patterns of subject

imports from China and India varied substantially. There were particular years when imports from China

had substantial distribution in the food service and retail channels and shipments to the industrial channel

never amounted to more than *** percent in any year.75 There were particular years when a *** of Indian

shipments were in the food service or retail channels; by contrast, the largest annual percentage of
 76 INV-BB-123, Table F-1.

 77 INV-BB-123, Table F-1.

 78 INV-BB-123, Table E-1.

 79 CR/PR, Table I-2.

 80 Coalition Response to Notice of Institution, ex. 4, third page. These materials do not directly specify whether

the growth in Chilean retail mushroom sales concerns fresh mushrooms, preserved mushrooms, or both. They

indicate that the Chilean producer markets both fresh and preserved mushrooms in Chile, and that 80 percent of

Chilean production is sold in the fresh market. Id.

 81 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 16.

13

shipments to industrial users was *** percent.76 Subject imports from Indonesia were concentrated in the

retail channel throughout the period examined during the first five-year reviews, with between *** and

*** percent of shipments directed to this channel. *** shipments were to food service users.77

Additionally, the record contained information concerning overlaps among purchasers of product

produced domestically and product from China, India, and Indonesia.78

Simultaneous Presence in Market. Subject imports from Chile were present in the U.S. market

throughout the original investigation but left the market in 1998 and have not returned since. Imports

from each of the other three subject countries have been present in the U.S. market for each year between

1995 and 2008, and have been present in non-trivial quantities for each year since 2000.79

Conclusion. The record in these expedited reviews concerning likely reasonable overlap of

competition differs from the record in the first five-year reviews in only minor respects. That the findings

the Commission made in the first five-year reviews concerning likely fungibility and geographic overlap

are also applicable in these five-year reviews is not in dispute. The updated data concerning simultaneous

presence in the market indicate a continuation of the patterns observed in the first five-year reviews.

We do not find what the Coalition contends is new information concerning likely Chilean

channels of distribution to be either new or significant. The Coalition appended to its response to the

notice of institution a printout of an undated article indicating the “strong development” in Chile of the

retail market for mushrooms.80 That the Chilean subject producer is capable of selling preserved

mushrooms in the retail sector is not a new development. During the first five-year reviews, the Coalition

submitted evidence showing that the Chilean producer marketed preserved mushrooms in the retail sector

in Mexico. In the determination, the Commission acknowledged this evidence indicating that the Chilean

producer theoretically had the ability to enter the U.S. retail channel of distribution, but found that “there

is no information indicating that *** has a U.S. retail distribution network in place, or can reasonably

establish such a network in light of its current lack of participation in the U.S. market and historic lack of

participation in the retail channel.”81 The record here supports the same finding. Accordingly, we find

that there is not a likely reasonable overlap of channels of distribution between subject imports from

Chile and Indonesia, but that a likely overlap exists between all other subject imports and between

imports from each subject country and the domestic like product. 

Consequently, we find a likely reasonable overlap of competition between the domestic like

product and imports from all subject countries, and between all subject imports except subject imports

from Chile and subject imports from Indonesia, for which there is not a likely reasonable overlap in

channels of distribution. We therefore find, for subject imports from Chile, that there is a likely

reasonable overlap of competition with the domestic like product and subject imports from China and

India; for subject imports from China and India, that there is a likely reasonable overlap of competition

between the domestic like product and with imports from all subject countries; and for subject imports

from Indonesia, that there is a likely reasonable overlap of competition with the domestic like product and

with subject imports from China and India. 
 82 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun do not join this section of the opinion. See their separate

views.

 83 Commissioner Pinkert explains his analysis of other considerations as follows. Where, in a five-year review,

he does not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry if the orders were revoked, and finds that such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with

the domestic like product in the U.S. market, he cumulates such imports unless there is a condition or propensity –

not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly limits competition

such that cumulation is not warranted. Based on the record in these reviews, and parallel to the discussion in the

text, he finds that there is no such condition or propensity with respect to the subject imports. 

Consequently, for his determination concerning subject imports from Chile, he cumulates subject imports

from Chile, China, and India. For his determinations on subject imports from China and India, he cumulates imports

from all four subject countries. For his determination on subject imports from Indonesia, he cumulates subject

imports from China, India and Indonesia.

 84 See, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, __ F.3d ___, App. No. 2009-1234, Slip Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7,

2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of competition in deciding whether to

cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing the

wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to

exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp., 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38.

 85 CR/PR, Figures I-1, I-2, Tables I-4, I-5.

14

E. Other Considerations82 83

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we assess

whether the subject imports from each group of subject countries for which we have found there is a

likely reasonable overlap of competition are likely to compete under similar or different conditions in the

U.S. market in the event of revocation.84 The record in these expedited reviews contains very little

current information about the industries in any of the four subject countries. Each of the subject countries

has exported appreciable quantities of preserved mushrooms to all markets throughout the period of

review.85 Moreover, as we previously found, preserved mushrooms are a fungible product. Based on the

limited information in the current record, we do not find any significant differences in likely conditions of

competition among imports from any of the subject countries for which we have found a likely reasonable

overlap of competition.

Accordingly, for our determination concerning subject imports from Chile, we cumulate subject

imports from Chile, China, and India. For our determinations on subject imports from China and India,

we cumulate imports from all four subject countries. For our determination on subject imports from

Indonesia, we cumulate subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia.
 86 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 87 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of

the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 88 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 89 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 90 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

(Review) and 731-TA-707 to 710 (Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 91 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 92 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 93 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

(continued...)

15

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”86 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”87 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.88 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.89 90 91

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”92 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”93
 93(...continued)

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 94 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 95 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce found duty absorption in its fourth administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on subject imports from China. 69 Fed. Reg. 54635, 54637 (Sept. 9, 2004). Commerce has

not made duty absorption findings with respect to the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Chile or

Indonesia. Commerce rescinded a duty absorption finding that it made concerning the antidumping duty order on

subject imports from India pursuant to an order of the Federal Circuit. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from

John M. Andersen to Ronald K. Lorentzen on Expedited Second Sunset Reviews (Dec. 14, 2009).

 96 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 97 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 98 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 99 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely

on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” 

SAA at 886.

16

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”94 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).95 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.96

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.97 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including the following four

enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity

in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in

inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other

than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign

country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.98

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review are revoked, the

Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of the domestic like product.99

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and
 100 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 101 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 102 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or any other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 103 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 104 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

17

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of

the domestic like product.100 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.101

No respondent interested party participated in these reviews or provided information. 

Accordingly, when appropriate in these reviews, we have relied on the facts otherwise available, which

consist of information from the original investigation and the first five-year reviews, as well as

information submitted in these reviews, including information provided by the Coalition on behalf of the

domestic industry, and information available from published sources.102 103

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”104

1. The Commission’s Original Determinations and Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission identified two pertinent conditions of competition. 

The first condition was that apparent U.S. consumption of mushrooms had declined during the original

period of investigation. Several witnesses attributed this decline to consumers switching from preserved

mushrooms to fresh mushrooms, for which demand increased during the original period of
 105 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 16; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 11.

 106 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 16-17; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 11.

 107 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 22.

 108 CR/PR, Table I-3.

 109 Coalition Response to Notice of Institution at 26.

 110 Coalition Response to Notice of Institution at 24.

 111 Coalition Response to Notice of Institution at 21. This figure is based on actual data from the four coalition

members and ***. See id. at 18-19, 21 n.9.

 112 CR/PR, Table I-1.

18

investigation.105 The second condition was the presence of three major types of purchasers in the

marketplace – retail, food service, and industrial – each of which was associated with a different channel

of distribution.106

In the first reviews, the Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption for the 1998-2003

period of review fluctuated; neither the data nor the reports of industry participants indicated that there

was the type of steady decline in demand observed during the original period of investigation. The

Commission observed that the types of purchasers and channels of distribution were unchanged from the

original period of investigation. There had been several changes in the composition of the domestic

industry, with the number of U.S. producers having declined since the original period of investigation. 

Imports not subject to the orders increased sharply after the orders were imposed and subsequently

declined.107

2. The Current Reviews

Demand Conditions. Based on information the Coalition provided on the domestic industry’s

U.S. shipments and official import data, apparent U.S. consumption of preserved mushrooms in 2008 was

179.0 million pounds. This figure is below the most recent previous figure available, which is for 2003,

and is also below the annual levels of apparent U.S. consumption reported during four of the six years of

the 1998-2003 period examined in the first reviews. During the period examined during the first reviews,

apparent U.S. consumption ranged between 173.2 and 198.7 million pounds. The 2008 apparent U.S.

consumption figure is well below the apparent U.S. consumption levels reported between 1995 and 1997

during the original period of investigation, which ranged from 204.5 million pounds to 240.1 million

pounds.108 The Coalition characterizes preserved mushrooms as a “mature” product.109 The record does

not contain any information suggesting that the types of purchasers or channels of distribution have

changed since the prior proceedings.

Supply Conditions. The Coalition states that there have been no major structural changes to the

domestic industry since the time of the first reviews.110 The capacity of the domestic industry has

declined since the time of the first reviews. The Coalition reports the domestic industry had capacity of

176.8 million pounds in 2008.111 This is lower than the 200.0 million pounds of domestic industry

capacity reported in 2003, which was the lowest capacity level reported during the period examined in the

first reviews.112

The domestic industry supplied 19.7 percent of apparent U.S. consumption of preserved

mushrooms in 2008. By contrast, the four subject countries were the largest suppliers to the domestic
 113 CR/PR, Table I-3. This figure is also applicable to China, India, and Indonesia combined. For Chile, China,

and India combined, the applicable figure is 58.2 percent. Id.

 114 CR/PR, Table I-3. This figure includes imports from Indonesian producer PT Zeta Agro, which is no longer

subject to the antidumping duty order.

 115 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 18-20; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 13-15, 18-20; First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 25, 30.

 116 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun join the remainder of this opinion only insofar as it

addresses the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Chile, China, and India. Their determinations on the

antidumping duty order on subject imports from Indonesia are found in their separate opinions.

 117 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 17; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 12-13, 17-18. 1997 cumulated subject import penetration was 44.1 percent for the Chile

determination, 57.8 percent for the China and India determinations, and 55.2 percent for the Indonesia determination.

 118 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 23.

 119 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 23-24.

 120 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 24.

19

market, supplying in the aggregate *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008.113 Sources not

subject to antidumping duties supplied the remaining *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.114

Substitutability. In both the original investigations and the first five-year reviews, the

Commission found that the subject imports, regardless of source, were at least moderate substitutes for the

domestic like product.115 Nothing in the current record indicates that this finding is no longer

applicable.116

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determinations and Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the quantity of cumulated subject imports rose slightly from 1995 to

1997 for purposes of the Indonesia determination and declined for purposes of the other determinations. 

For all determinations, the quantity of cumulated subject imports was higher in interim 1998 than in

interim 1997. Additionally, for all determinations, the market penetration of cumulated subject imports

rose from 1995 to 1997 and was higher in interim 1998 than in interim 1997. The Commission found

that, in light of their market penetration levels, both the volume and increase in market penetration of

cumulated subject imports were significant.117

In its determinations in the first five-year reviews concerning cumulated subject imports from

Chile, China, and India, the Commission found that cumulated subject import volume declined sharply in

1999 after imposition of the orders, rose the next two years, declined in 2002, and rose sharply in 2003.118

It found that the increases in cumulated subject imports observed during the period of review, as well as

other information in the record, indicated that the subject producers had the capability to increase subject

imports to the United States. It found that unused capacity in Chile had remained at least at the quantity

observed during the original investigations, and that total capacity increased in China and India during the

period of review.119

The Commission stated that several factors supported a conclusion that subject producers in

Chile, China, and India would likely utilize their increased or unused capacity to direct significant

quantities of additional exports to the United States upon revocation of the orders. These factors were:

(1) the export orientation of the subject producers, (2) the attractiveness of the U.S. market to the subject

producers, and (3) barriers to exportation in third-country export markets.120

In its determination on subject imports from Indonesia, the Commission found that subject import

volume fluctuated within a fairly narrow range from 1998 to 2001. Subject import volume from
 121 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 28.

 122 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 29.

 123 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 28-29. 

 124 For subject imports from Chile, China, and India, which the Commission is cumulating for purposes of its

determinations on subject imports from Chile and which Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun are

cumulating for purposes of their determinations on imports from each of those three subject countries, cumulated

subject import quantities rose in 2004, declined the next two years, peaked at 106.3 million pounds in 2007, and

declined slightly to 104.1 million pounds in 2008. Both the 2007 and 2008 figures exceeded the prior peak of 94.7

million pounds of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India, which was reached in 2004. By contrast,

the peak quantity of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India in the period examined during the first

five-year reviews was 75.1 million pounds, reached in 2003, and the peak quantity during the original period of

investigation was 83.5 million pounds, reached in 1995. CR/PR, Table I-2.

For all four subject countries, which the Commission is cumulating for purposes of its determinations on

subject imports for China and India and which Commissioner Lane is cumulating for purposes of each of her

determinations, cumulated subject import quantities rose in 2004, declined the next two years, peaked at *** pounds

in 2007, and declined to *** pounds in 2008. The 2008 figure exceeded the peak 93.8 million pounds of cumulated

subject imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia observed during the first reviews, and matched or exceeded

the quantities of cumulated subject imports from these countries reported during two of the three full years of the

original period of investigation. (The peak quantity for the original period of investigation, 123.0 million pounds,

occurred in 1995.) CR/PR, Table I-2.

For subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia, which the Commission is cumulating for purpose of

its determination on subject imports from Indonesia, cumulated subject import quantities rose in 2004, declined the

next two years, peaked at *** pounds in 2007, and declined to *** pounds in 2008. The 2007 and 2008 volumes, as

well as the 2004 volume of *** pounds, exceeded the prior peak of 108.9 million pounds of cumulated subject

imports from China, India, and Indonesia, which occurred in 1997. CR/PR, Table I-2.

 125 CR/PR, Table I-3.

20

Indonesia declined appreciably in 2002 and 2003 due to the revocation of the order with respect to

Indonesian producer PT Zeta Agro.121

The subject Indonesian producers projected that their capacity would increase after 2003, and

specifically projected increases in exports to the United States in 2004 and 2005. The Commission found

that these projections were overly conservative, and concluded that “the overwhelming percentage of

additional production is likely to be directed to increasing exports to the United States.”122 In light of this

conclusion, the Commission found that subject import volume from Indonesia would likely increase

substantially over current levels.123

2. The Current Reviews

For each of the three cumulation combinations we are considering, the quantity of subject imports

has increased since the period examined during the first five-year reviews. Additionally, for each

cumulation combination, subject import quantity peaked in 2007, was greater that year than for any year

since 1997, and was at or near the peak level for the entire period for which data are available. Subject

import quantity in 2008 for each cumulation combination was only *** below the 2007 quantities, and

was also above the quantity for every other year since 1997.124

Because the only year during the period of review for which the record contains U.S. shipment

data is 2008, this is also the sole year during the period for which we can compute subject imports’ share

of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption. This share is *** percent for both cumulated imports from

all subject countries and cumulated imports for China, India, and Indonesia, and 58.1 percent for

cumulated imports from Chile, China, and India. Each of these figures is higher than the comparable

figure for any year since 1995 for which we have available data.125
 126 CR/PR, Figures I-1, I-2, Tables I-4, I-5.

 127 CR/PR, Tables I-4 (India), I-5 (Indonesia); INV-V-089 at Tables VII-1 (Chile), VII-2 (China) (Nov. 5, 1999)

(EDIS Doc. 415595).

 128 INV-V-089, Table VII-1.

 129 CR/PR, Figure I-1.

 130 Coalition Response to Notice of Institution, ex. 2.

 131 CR/PR, Table I-2.

 132 CR/PR, Figure I-2.

 133 Coalition Response to Notice of Institution, ex. 2.

 134 CR/PR, Table I-4.

 135 CR/PR, Table I-4.

 136 CR/PR, Table I-5. Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun do not join this paragraph.

21

For each cumulation combination we are considering, we find that cumulated subject import

volume, which is already significant both in absolute terms and relative to U.S. consumption, will likely

increase further upon revocation. We observe in this respect that the facts available indicate that the

industry in each subject country is export oriented. The record indicates that each subject country

exported appreciable quantities of preserved mushrooms worldwide during the period of review.126 The

historic data available in the record further indicate that the industries in each country have consistently

exported the *** majority of their production.127

Additionally, the information available indicates that each subject country has the ability to direct

significant additional quantities of subject merchandise to the United States. Even during the period

examined during the original investigations, the industry in Chile had *** excess capacity.128 Chilean

exports of canned mushrooms to all markets plummeted severely after imposition of the order, indicating

that the Chilean industry was unable to direct to other markets exports previously shipped to the United

States. While export levels have subsequently fluctuated, they have never reached pre-order levels.129

This fact, in conjunction with the Chilean industry’s export orientation during the original period of

investigation, indicates that the Chilean industry maintains *** excess capacity. Moreover, Chilean

exports to individual markets have varied dramatically on an annual basis,130 which indicates that the

Chilean industry would have the ability to shift exports readily from its other export markets to the United

States upon revocation.

The industry in China has in fact directed substantial additional exports to the United States since

2006.131 The record contains no indication that the Chinese industry will be unable to continue this

pattern of increased exports in the reasonably foreseeable future. To the contrary, the large increase in

Chinese exports of canned mushrooms to all markets since 2004 suggests that the Chinese industry has

increased its capacity.132 Additionally, Chinese export data in the record covering the period of review

indicate that China exports substantial quantities of canned mushrooms to other markets; these shipments

could be directed to the United States upon revocation.133

The most recent information available concerning the capacity of the Indian industry, which is

from the period examined in the first reviews, indicates that the industry’s capacity ***. Moreover,

throughout that period the amount of unused capacity, in relation to exports to the United States, was

significant.134 The record in these expedited reviews does not contain any information indicating that the

industry in India does not continue to have significant unused capacity that could be used to increase

exports to the United States. Additionally, the most recent export information available, which is from

2008, indicates that the Indian industry exports appreciable quantities of subject merchandise to other

markets; these shipments could be directed to the United States upon revocation.135

The information available concerning the industry in Indonesia indicates that its exports to other

markets in 2008 were *** larger than they were during the original period of investigation or the period

examined during the first review.136 This indicates that the industry in Indonesia has the ability to direct

substantial additional exports to the United States upon revocation.
 137 See CR/PR, Tables I-4, I-5; Coalition Response to Notice of Institution, ex. 2.

 138 CR at I-36, PR at I-29.

 139 In the first reviews, the Commission did not rely on information concerning inventories or product shifting in

its analysis of likely cumulated subject import volume. First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at

25 n.142. The record in these reviews does not contain any updated information concerning these factors.

 140 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 18-20; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 13-15, 18-20.

 141 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 25, 30.

22

Consequently, for each cumulation combination under consideration, the facts available support a

finding that the subject industries have the ability to direct significant additional exports to the United

States upon revocation. Several considerations lead us to conclude that the subject producers are likely to

exploit their ability to direct significant additional exports to the United States. First, the industries in the

subject countries already engaged in such behavior during the period of review even with the orders in

place. As previously stated, during the two most recent years of the period of review, for each cumulation

combination under consideration, the quantity of subject imports increased to levels at or near historic

peaks dating back to the time of the original period of investigation, notwithstanding that current U.S.

demand has declined substantially since the original period of investigation and has been no better than

stagnant since the time of the first reviews.

Further indication that the subject producers perceive the United States to be an attractive export

market, and thus a likely destination for additional exports upon revocation, is provided by data indicating

that during the period of review the United States has been the largest export market for the industries in

China, India, and Indonesia.137 Additionally, imports from the subject countries are subject to barriers to

importation in other export markets. Preserved mushrooms from China have been subject to antidumping

duties imposed by Australia and Mexico since 2006. Preserved mushrooms from Chile have been subject

to antidumping duties imposed by Mexico since 2006. Further, since 2006 preserved mushrooms from

Chile, China, India, and Indonesia have been subject to a tariff-rate quota in the European Union.138

In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that upon revocation, the likely subject

import volume will be significant for each cumulation combination under consideration.139

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determinations and Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor in

purchasing decisions and that the subject imports (regardless of the sources being cumulated) were at

least moderate substitutes with the domestic like product. It found there to be significant underselling by

the subject imports, although the incidence of underselling varied depending on the sources being

cumulated. It also noted that prices declined during the period of investigation, with the price declines

being particularly noteworthy for the 68-ounce stems and pieces pricing product on which the

Commission particularly focused in its pricing analysis. The Commission found that prices declined at a

greater rate than cost of goods sold, and concluded that the subject imports had significant pricedepressing effects.140

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that price continued to be an important

factor in purchasing decisions. It further found that the subject imports, regardless of source, were at least

moderate substitutes for the domestic like product.141

In the determinations concerning subject imports from Chile, China, and India, the Commission

found that the cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in over 65 percent of

quarterly comparisons, even with the orders in place. It also found there to be a connection between the

increasing presence of cumulated subject imports in the market after 2000 and price declines for the
 142 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 26.

 143 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 30-31. The Commission did not use for its

underselling analysis certain pricing data submitted by importer General Mills.

 144 First-Five Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 31-32.

 145 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 20.

 146 Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations, USITC Pub. 3159 at 14, 19.

 147 There was underselling in over 65 percent of comparisons for cumulated subject imports from Chile, China,

and India. First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 26. For cumulated subject imports from all

four subject countries, and for cumulated subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia, there was underselling in

60 percent of comparisons. See Confidential First Five-Year Review Determinations at 38, 47 (EDIS Doc. 415602).

23

domestic like product. The Commission concluded that, in light of the likely stable U.S. demand for

preserved mushrooms, the increased cumulated subject imports likely upon revocation would force the

domestic industry either to cut prices or lose market share; moreover, a continued increase in subject

imports would likely contribute materially to a continuation of the price declines for the domestic like

product observed during both the original investigation and the period of review. It therefore concluded

that revocation would likely cause significant price depression.142

In the review determination concerning subject imports from Indonesia, the Commission found

that during the period of review subject imports from Indonesia undersold the domestic like product in 36

of the 72 quarterly comparisons that met its standards of reliability and comparability.143 It observed that

the frequency of underselling by subject imports from Indonesia was higher during the period of review

than during the original period of investigation, found that revocation of the order would likely cause the

frequency of underselling to increase further, and thus concluded that underselling would likely be

significant upon revocation. It also found that revocation would likely cause significant price depression,

using the same reasoning as it did for its similar finding concerning the cumulated subject imports.144

2. The Current Reviews

As previously discussed, the Commission found in both the original investigations and the first

five-year reviews that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions and that the subject

imports, regardless of source, are at least moderate substitutes for the domestic like product. The record

in these expedited reviews contains no information that would lead us to question these findings or

conclude that they are no longer applicable.

Because no pricing data were collected during these expedited reviews, the pricing data available

are from the original investigations and the first five-year reviews. During the original investigations, the

Commission found underselling by the subject imports significant for all cumulation combinations. 

There was underselling in 54 percent of comparisons for cumulated subject imports from Chile, China,

and India.145 There was an equal number of observations of overselling and underselling for cumulated

subject imports from all four subject countries, and underselling in 52 percent of comparisons for

cumulated subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia.146 The incidence of underselling was even

greater during the period examined during the first reviews despite the orders. For the cumulation

combinations under consideration here, rates ranged from 60 percent to over 65 percent.147 In light of this

consistent history of significant underselling during the period for which pricing data are available, we

find that significant underselling will likely occur upon revocation for all cumulation combinations under

consideration.

This likely underselling, combined with the likely increased volumes of cumulated subject

imports, will result in the likelihood of the cumulated subject imports continuing to take market share

away from the domestic industry, as happened during the original investigations, the latter portion of the

period examined during the first reviews, and the period between 2003 and 2008, the one year during the
 148 CR/PR, Table I-3.

 149 Indeed, during the prior proceedings, for which current pricing data series were available, increasing volumes

of subject imports correlated with declining prices for the domestic like product for every cumulation combination

examined. Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 20; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 14, 19; First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 36.

 150 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission

in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section

1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce conducted expedited

second five-year reviews with respect to each of the orders under review. With respect to Chile, it found a likely

margin of 148.51 percent for both named exporter Nature’s Farm Products (Chile) S.A. and all others. With respect

to China, Commerce found likely margins ranging from 121.47 percent to 162.47 percent for 12 named exporters

and a China-wide rate of 198.63 percent. With respect to India, it found likely margins ranging from 6.28 percent to

243.87 percent for four named respondents and an 11.30 percent all-others rate. With respect to Indonesia, the order

has been revoked with respect to PT Zeta Agro Corp., there is a likely margin of 7.94 percent for named exporter PT

Dieng Djaya/PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa, and the all others rate is 11.26 percent. 79 Fed. Reg. at 67171. 

 151 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 21-24; Original China/India/Indonesia Determinations,

USITC Pub. 3159 at 15-17, 20-22.

 152 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 27.

24

current period of review for which apparent U.S. consumption data are available.148 Moreover, in light of

the importance of price in purchasing decisions, and the fact that the subject imports are at least moderate

substitutes with the domestic like product, the subject imports are likely to have significant pricedepressing or -suppressing effects.149

We accordingly determine, for each cumulation combination under consideration, that the

cumulated subject imports will likely have significant adverse price effects.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports150

1. The Commission’s Original Determinations and Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports gained

market share at the expense of the domestic industry. There were declines in the domestic industry’s

production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment. The combination of declining output and

falling prices led to deterioration in the domestic industry’s operating performance. Operating margins

declined throughout the period of investigation. During 1997, the operating margin had declined to 1.3

percent and at least half of the domestic producers sustained operating losses.151

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the domestic industry showed some

modest improvements in several indicators of performance immediately after imposition of the orders in

1999. However, after 2000, the industry’s condition deteriorated; the industry experienced operating

losses during 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Commission found the domestic industry to be in a vulnerable

condition.152

In both the determination concerning cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India,

and the determination concerning subject imports from Indonesia, the Commission found that subject

import volume would likely increase after revocation, the subject imports would likely undersell the
 153 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 27, 32-33.

 154 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 155 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 156 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 157 CR/PR, Table I-3.

 158 CR/PR, Table I-1.

 159 CR/PR, Table I-3.

25

domestic like product, and that the likely volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely

exacerbate the declines in industry performance observed during the latter portion of the period of

review.153

2. The Current Reviews

The record in these expedited reviews contains limited data concerning the condition of the

domestic industry in 2008. These data indicate further deterioration in several indicators since the period

examined in the first reviews. The industry’s capacity and production were lower in 2008 than during

any prior year from 1995 for which data are available. The declines in production are particularly

dramatic. Domestic industry production in 2008 was 44.7 million pounds, as compared to a range

between 50.2 million pounds and 68.9 million pounds during the period examined during the first

reviews, and a range between 74.7 million pounds and 107.7 million pounds during the original period of

investigation.154 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization during 2008 was 25.3 percent.155

The quantity and value of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were each lower in 2008 than

for any prior year for which data are available. The domestic industry had 35.2 million pounds in

shipments in 2008, with a value of $51.9 million. The lowest previous levels for these indicators, which

were set in 2003, were respectively 47.7 million pounds and $55.7 million.156

The domestic industry’s share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption was also lower in

2008 than for any previous year for which data are available. This share was 19.7 percent in 2008. By

contrast, it ranged between 25.4 percent and 40.7 percent during the period examined during the first

reviews, and between 36.5 percent and 42.2 percent during the original period of investigation.157

Notwithstanding these negative indicators, the industry reported profitable operations during

2008.158 While several indicators for which we have current data support the view that the domestic

industry’s condition has deteriorated further since the time of the first reviews, we cannot conclude that

the domestic industry is in a vulnerable condition in light of the limited data available in these expedited

reviews. 

We do find that the additional volumes of subject imports that are likely, at prices that will likely

undersell those for the domestic like product, will likely cause further declines in the domestic industry’s

production, shipments, sales revenues, and market share. The likely declines in shipments and output will

in turn likely lead to declines in employment. Additional quantities of low-priced subject imports are also

likely to lead to a deterioration in the financial performance of the domestic industry, as they did during

the original investigations and first five-year reviews. We consequently find, for all cumulation

combinations under consideration, that the cumulated subject imports are likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

In conducting our analysis of likely impact, we have also considered the likely effect of factors

other than the cumulated subject imports on the domestic industry. With respect to recent and likely

changes in demand, apparent U.S. consumption of preserved mushrooms during 2008, the sole year

during the period of review for which such data are available, was within the range observed for the

period examined during the first reviews.159 The record contains no empirical information indicating that

the type of sharp declines in apparent U.S. consumption observed during the original period of

investigation occurred during the period of review, or are likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. In
 160 CR/PR, Table I-2.

 161 For purposes of the Commission’s determination on subject imports from Chile, and the determinations of

Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun for purposes of their determinations of Chile, China, and India,

imports not subject to cumulation (which are from nonsubject countries and Indonesia) had *** percent U.S. market

penetration in 2008. Their lowest previous share since 1999 was *** percent in 2003. CR/PR, Table I-3.

For purposes of the Commission’s determination on subject imports from China and India, and for all

determinations of Commissioner Lane, nonsubject imports had *** percent U.S. market penetration in 2008. Their

lowest previous share since 1999 was 25.3 percent in 1999. Id. 

For purposes of the Commission’s determination on subject imports from Indonesia, imports not subject to

cumulation (which are from nonsubject sources and Chile) had *** percent U.S. market penetration in 2008. Their

lowest previous share since 1999 was 25.3 percent in 1999. Id. 

 162 Vice Chairman Pearson dissenting with respect to subject imports from Indonesia.

26

any event, notwithstanding that current U.S. demand for preserved mushrooms is substantially lower than

it was during the mid 1990s, the quantity of subject imports in 2007 and 2008, depending on the

cumulation combination examined, was either comparable to or higher than the peak volumes reached

during the 1995-97 original period of investigation.160 Declines in demand cannot explain the recent and

likely declines in the domestic industry’s market share.

We have also considered the role of those imports we have not cumulated. For each of the

cumulation combinations under consideration, the market share of those imports we have not cumulated

was lower in 2008 than at any time since 1999.161 In light of the trends showing a diminishing presence

of such imports in the U.S. market, the cumulated subject imports would likely have a significant adverse

impact notwithstanding the presence of other imports.

Consequently, considerations of factors other than the cumulated subject imports do not detract

from our finding that, for each cumulation combination under consideration, the cumulated subject

imports will have a likely material adverse impact on the domestic industry.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved

mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.162
 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2

 INV-BB-123 at Figure IV-2, Tables IV-3 and IV-4 (Oct. 4, 2004)

 3

 INV-BB-123 at I-14. 

27

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF 

COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

I. Introduction

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty finding in

a five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy

would be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”)

determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably

foreseeable time.1

 Based on the record in this second five-year review, I determine that material injury is

not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the order on subject imports of

certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia is revoked.

I join my colleagues’ discussion regarding domestic like product, domestic industry, and

conditions of competition (sections I, II, and IV.B), and I join my colleagues’ determination regarding the

likelihood of the recurrence or continuation of material injury if the orders on Chile, China, and India

were revoked (sections IV.C-IV.E, as noted). In these reviews, I join my colleagues in their reasoning

and conclusions regarding the likelihood of no discernible adverse impact upon revocation (section III.C)

and the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports and between subject

imports and the domestic like product (section III.D). I have exercised my discretion to cumulate subject

imports from Chile, China, and India for the reasons stated in the Views of the Commission. I have,

however, chosen not to cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, and India with those from Indonesia

in order to make my determination as to whether a continuation or recurrence of material injury is likely if

the order on Indonesia were revoked. 

II. Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order on Indonesia were

revoked

A. Cumulation

The Commission conducted a full investigation in its first review of these orders. The record

compiled in the first reviews indicated that the industry in Indonesia was distinguishable from those in

China and India by differences in its capacity, as the industry in Indonesia was significantly smaller than

in the original investigation, while those in China and India appeared to have grown significantly.2

 The

industry in Indonesia was also distinguishable in that one significant producer, PT Zeta Agro, had

succeeded in having the order as to its imports revoked in February 2002.3

 

Other factors also distinguished the industry in Indonesia from those in China and India, and

those factors indicated that, upon revocation, subject imports from Indonesia would face different

conditions of competition. The imposition of the orders had diverse effects on subject imports. Subject

imports from China were essentially barred from the U.S. market at first, but then increased at impressive

rates. Subject imports from China more than doubled between 2000 and 2001, going from 8.3 million

pounds to 19.4 million pounds, and more than doubled again between 2002 and 2003, rising from 20.6

million pounds to 48.1 million pounds. In the year that the orders were imposed, subject imports from

India ballooned, increasing from 12.6 million pounds in 1998 to 32.0 million pounds in 1999. The

volume of subject imports from India slackened somewhat after 1999, but in 2003 the volume of subject
 4

 INV-BB-123 at Table I-1. 

 5

 INV-BB-123 at Table I-1.

 6

 INV-W-005 (January 20, 1999) at Table I-1.

 7

 INV-BB-123 at Table F-1. 

 8

 INV-BB-123 at Table C-1.

 9

 INV-BB-123 at Table C-1. 

 10 INV-W-005 (January 20, 1999) at Table I-2.

 11 INV-BB-123 at Table F-1.

 12 INV-BB-123 at Table V-5. Even if the pricing data for *** products are excluded, subject imports from

Indonesia oversold the domestic like product more frequently than did other subject imports. Id. 

28

imports from India was still four-and-a-half times higher than it had been in 1995.4

 Subject imports from

Chile had essentially ceased after the order was imposed.5

The imposition of the orders also brought significant changes, and instability, to the channels of

distribution for subject imports from China and India. In the original investigation, subject imports from

China were concentrated in the food service sector, but a significant share of imports went to the retail

market. For subject imports from India, the opposite was true, with a majority going to retail but a

significant minority sold into the food service sector.6

 In the years since the orders had been imposed,

however, there had been no stability in channels of distribution for subject imports from China and India. 

In 1999, *** percent of subject imports from China were reported as sold to the food service sector; in

2003, *** percent of subject imports from China were reported as sold to the retail sector. For subject

imports from India, *** percent of subject imports in 1999 were reported as sold to the food service

sector, but by 2003, that sector accounted for only *** percent, while the retail market accounted for ***

percent.7

The imposition of the order had a very different effect on subject imports from Indonesia. During

the period of the original investigation, the volume of subject imports from Indonesia had increased

somewhat. In the years immediately following the imposition of the order, subject import volume

remained relatively steady and within 10 percent of the levels reached during the period of the original

investigation. Later in the first review period, subject import volume declined, but total imports from

Indonesia, including subject and nonsubject imports, were extremely stable, hovering around 22 million

pounds in each of the last three years of the first review period.8

 Subject import volume from Indonesia

remained steady between 1999 and 2000 despite a 10-percent increase in apparent domestic consumption,

and remained steady between 2002 and 2003, despite an 8.5 percent increase in apparent domestic

consumption. Subject imports from Indonesia gained no market share throughout the first period of

review despite having consistently low margins. When the order as to one major exporter, PT Zeta Agro,

was revoked, its shipments to the U.S. remained relatively flat, and total imports from Indonesia were

flat.9

A similar stability prevailed in the channels of distribution for subject imports from Indonesia. 

During the period of the original investigation, just over *** percent of its shipments went to the retail

sector, with the remainder going to the food service sector.10 After the order was imposed, subject

imports from Indonesia remained highly concentrated in that same channel of distribution.11

During the original period of investigation, subject imports from Indonesia undersold the

domestic like product less frequently than did other subject imports. That trend continued during the

post-order period. Subject imports from China and India undersold the domestic like product in

approximately two-thirds of the quarterly comparisons; subject imports from Indonesia undersold the

domestic like product in less than half of the quarterly comparisons, and at times oversold by large

margins.12

After the order was imposed, subject imports from Indonesia were relatively stable in both

volume and pricing patterns, and subject import volume in particular was not responsive to shifts in

overall apparent domestic consumption, shifts in the volume of other subject imports, or changes in its
 13 The decline in subject imports after 2001 was driven largely by the exclusion of PT Zeta Agro from the order.

 14 CR at I-33 n.68. 

 15 CR at Table I-2. 

 16 CR at Table I-2.

 17 CR/PR at Table I-2. 

 18 Tr. at 148 (Mr. Larson); tr. at 66, 67 (Mr. Kazemi).

 19 Compare INV-BB-123 at Table IV-4 with Table C-1.

 20 Tr. at 142, 143, 144 (Mr. Larson).

29

own margins.13 Subject imports from China and India, on the other hand, appeared to have been

significantly affected by the imposition of the orders, and as a result both volume and channels of

distribution shifted in opportunistic fashions, while subject imports from Chile were effectively excluded

from the U.S. market by reason of the orders.

These differences in trends suggested that subject imports from Indonesia were entering the U.S.

market under different conditions of competition than the other subject imports. The more limited record

available in this second review does not suggest to me that these unique conditions have changed

appreciably. The record does suggest that the industry in Indonesia may have expanded during the

second period of review, as one producer that had exited the market returned to production.14 However,

the volume exported to the U.S. market remained relatively steady. Subject imports from Indonesia

accounted for between *** and *** percent of total U.S. imports for every year between 2002 and 2008.15

 The total volume of imported mushrooms from Indonesia, subject and nonsubject combined, was nearly

as steady, accounting for between *** and *** percent.16 The volume of subject imports from China,

however, continued to increase significantly over this second period of review, both absolutely and

relatively; the volume of subject imports from India declined somewhat over the second review but

remained far higher, both absolutely and relatively, than during the original investigation; and imports

from Chile continued to be shut out of the U.S. market.17

So the record suggests that imports from Indonesia continued to enter the U.S. market during the

period of the second review subject to somewhat different conditions of competition, as volume remained

relatively constant regardless of other changes, while imports from China and India responded to other

conditions and imports from Chile were still barred by the presence of the order. Nothing in the record

suggests that the differing conditions affecting Indonesia are likely to be removed upon revocation. 

Therefore cumulating subject imports from Indonesia with those from Chile, China, or India would

obscure important differences between those subject imports and the likely effects upon revocation. I

therefore exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, and India, but will

evaluate subject imports from Indonesia separately.

B. Conditions of competition

I adopt the conditions of competition as discussed by my colleagues in section IV.B of the Views

of the Commission above. I find these additional conditions of competition to be relevant to my

consideration of the likely effects of revocation of the order on Indonesia.

The record compiled in the first review indicated that the industry in Indonesia was focused on

producing preserved mushrooms, predominantly for the U.S. market. The supply of mushrooms available

for the production of preserved mushrooms in Indonesia was therefore not dependent on demand for fresh

mushrooms or the share of mushrooms that cannot meet the requirements of the market for fresh

mushrooms.18 The industry in Indonesia historically operated at far higher capacity utilization rates than

did the domestic industry.19 A significant portion of imports from Indonesia consisted of branded

products that sold for a premium in the retail market.20
 21 INV-BB-123 at Table F-1.

 22 INV-W-005 (January 20, 1999) at Tables V-1 and V-3.

 23 In making this finding, I note that in its original determination, the Commission found that subject imports had

significant price-depressing effects, but that finding was made on the basis of cumulated subject imports from China,

India, and Indonesia. Original Indonesia Determination at 19.

 24 INV-BB-123 at Table V-1.

 25 INV-BB-123 at Table V-2.

 26 INV-BB-123 at Table V-3. 

30

C. Volume

As noted above, subject import volume from Indonesia remained remarkably stable throughout

the original investigation period and the first review period. This trend persisted during the second

review period, as subject import volume ranged from *** to *** percent of total U.S. imports. Subject

import volume from Indonesia actually declined modestly towards the end of the second period of

review, despite an alleged increase in capacity. The record in the first review indicated that competition

between the domestic like product and subject imports from Indonesia was somewhat limited. Subject

imports from Indonesia were heavily concentrated in the retail sector, and concentration in that sector

meant a corresponding concentration in small cans and jars, as opposed to the 68-ounce cans sold to food

service or industrial users. The domestic like product was sold in all channels and in both sizes, but sales

of the domestic like product were more evenly distributed, and sales to industrial users and food service

users accounted for *** of sales of the domestic like product throughout the period of the first review

since the orders were imposed.21 Furthermore, a significant portion of the subject imports from Indonesia

were sold as name-brand products, further distinguishing those imports.

Nothing in the record suggests that these limitations in competition between the domestic like

product and subject imports from Indonesia changed over the second period of review, or that changes are

likely upon revocation, given the great continuity in subject imports from Indonesia over a very long

period of time. Rather, the evidence suggests continuing stability, limited competition, and the likelihood

that the volume of subject imports from Indonesia would not be significant upon revocation.

D. Price

Subject imports from Indonesia oversold the domestic like product more frequently than did other

subject imports during the original investigation. Subject imports from Indonesia oversold the domestic

like product in 26 of 42 quarterly observations, including 12 of 14 quarters for product 1, another retail

product.22 Between 1995 and 1997 the volume of subject imports from Indonesia actually increased, both

absolutely and relatively, despite persistent overselling in its dominant products. The record suggested

that subject imports from Indonesia did not gain market share by underselling and that subject imports

from Indonesia did not suppress or depress prices for the domestic like product.23 In the period of the first

review, subject imports from Indonesia continued to oversell the domestic like product frequently. For

product 1, four-ounce cans of stems and pieces, subject imports from Indonesia oversold the domestic like

product consistently, and by large margins ***. Even if ***, subject imports oversold the domestic like

product throughout most of the period. Subject imports undersold in the last two years of the period, but

by modest margins.24 Subject imports of product 2, the 68-ounce can product, oversold the domestic like

product in most quarters.25 Only in product 3 did subject imports consistently undersell the domestic like

product, and for that product the reported prices accounted for modest amounts of imports.26

The record indicates that subject imports from Indonesia frequently oversold the domestic like

product both before and after the order was imposed. The record also suggests that overselling had little

impact on subject import volume, as subject import volume from Indonesia remained steady during the

period of the first review, despite frequently overselling the domestic like product. No product-specific
 27 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 28 I note that Commerce has determined the likely dumping margins to be 7.94 percent for PT Dieng Djaya and

11.26 percent for all others covered by the antidumping duty order. CR at I-8, PR at I-7.

 29 INV-BB-123 at Table C-1.

 30 INV-BB-123 at Table C-1.

 31 CR/PR at Table I-1.

31

pricing data were gathered during this expedited review, but average unit values for subject imports from

Indonesia were consistently significantly higher than the AUVs for other subject imports and non-subject

imports as well. The AUVs for subject imports from Indonesia were quite close to the AUVs for nonsubject imports from Indonesia, however. These comparisons suggest that subject imports from Indonesia

were comprised either of significantly higher-priced goods or of a significantly different product mix than

were other subject imports, as well as suggesting, again, that the order actually had relatively little impact

on the pricing or volume of subject imports from Indonesia.27

The evidence on the record suggest that revocation would have little effect on the prices of

subject imports from Indonesia. The apparent difference in pricing or product mix suggests that subject

imports are no more likely to suppress or depress domestic prices than in the past. Given that significant

change in import volume is not likely upon revocation, and given that subject imports frequently oversold

the domestic like product even when removed from the discipline of an order, I find that significant

underselling by the subject imports as compared to domestic like products is not likely, and that the

subject imports are not likely to enter the United States at prices that would otherwise have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products. I find it likely that subject

imports will not lead to significant price depression or suppression.28

E. Impact

The domestic industry’s market share had peaked in 1999 at 40.7 percent; in 2003, it was 25.4

percent. The domestic industry’s production peaked as long ago as 2000 and in 2003, production by the

domestic industry was down 27 percent from that peak, although domestic consumption was down by less

than five percent. In 2003 the domestic industry utilized only 25.1 percent of its capacity, even though its

productive capacity by 2003 had contracted by 28.7 percent since 1998. Along with its productive

capacity, the industry shed nearly one-fifth of its workers between 1998 and 2003.29 

The industry’s loss of market share and production coincided with a steady decline in the value of

sales after 1999. The value of net sales was $58.1 million in 2003, down from $98.4 million in 1999. 

The industry’s profitability peaked in 2000, with operating income equal to only 3.2 percent of sales. The

industry registered losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and in 2003 its operating losses were equivalent to 2.7

percent of sales.30

The limited data available in this expedited review suggest that the domestic industry’s condition

is little changed from the period of the first review. Capacity has declined further, but production

declined as well, leaving capacity utilization in 2008 at levels similar to that in 2003. Shipments were also

down significantly. The industry did record an operating profit in 2008.31 But the industry’s

performance does not correlate with the behavior of subject imports from Indonesia. In the industry’s

best years, between 1998 and 2000, subject imports from Indonesia were increasing moderately or steady

and accounted for significant shares of apparent domestic consumption. In fact, the market share of

subject imports from Indonesia was highest in 1999, the same year that market share for the domestic like

product also peaked. In the years since 2000, as the industry has turned downward, subject imports from

Indonesia accounted for a steady share of apparent U.S. consumption. As the industry’s sales revenue

turned downward, subject imports from Indonesia frequently oversold the domestic like product, as in the

original investigation. The channels of distribution for subject imports remained essentially unchanged,

indicating that imports from Indonesia were not occupying new markets at the expense of the domestic
 32 INV-BB-123 at I-14.

32

like product. Yet significant portions of those subject imports were subject to little restraint from

antidumping margins, as several exporters earned progressively lower margins through administrative

reviews by the Department of Commerce.32

Nothing suggests that this will change upon revocation. The entire record, stretching back to the

beginning of the original investigation, suggests a fair degree of stability in the relationship between

subject imports from Indonesia and the U.S. market. Given the continuity between the original

investigation period and the period after the order was imposed, revocation is not likely to have a

significant impact on that relationship. Subject import volume is not likely to increase significantly upon

revocation, and subject imports are not likely to change the long pattern of frequent overselling. Given

the lack of significant volume of subject imports upon revocation, the lack of significant price effects, and

the lack of correlation between the condition of the industry and subject imports, I find it likely that

revocation of the order will not have a significant impact on the domestic industry’s cash flow,

inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, nor lead to a significant reduction in the

domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or productivity. In light of these findings, I

determine that revocation of the order on preserved mushrooms from Indonesia is not likely to lead to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable

time.
 1

 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (July 2007) (Separate and

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). 

Accord Nucor Corp. v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United

States, 594 F. Supp.2d 1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip Op. 2009-1234, -1235 (Fed Cir., April 7,

2010).

33

SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DEANNA TANNER OKUN

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, I determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms from

Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. I join in the Commission’s

Views with respect to background, domestic like product and industry, the no discernible adverse impact

and likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition sections of the cumulation analysis, legal standards,

conditions of competition, and the likely volume, price and impact sections insofar as they address the

antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Chile, China, and India. I write separately with respect

to my cumulation analysis of likely conditions of competition and my analysis of the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of material injury if the antidumping order on subject imports from Indonesia

is revoked.

Based on my cumulation analysis, I exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from

Chile, China and India, and to assess the likely subject imports from Indonesia separately from any other

country. I join the Commission’s Views in determining that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

subject imports from Chile, China and India on a cumulated basis would be likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. I

separately determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Indonesia

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

I. CUMULATION

A. Legal Standard

While I consider the same issues discussed in the Commission’s Views in determining whether to

exercise my discretion to cumulate the subject imports, my analytical framework begins with whether

imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of competition.1

 For those subject

imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, I next proceed to consider

whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports are likely to

compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis I intend to

exercise my discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, I analyze whether I am precluded from

cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed individually,

are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

B. Likely Conditions of Competition Among Subject Imports

In determining whether to exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports, I first assess

whether the subject imports from each subject country are likely to compete under similar conditions of
 2

 See, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 2009-1234, -1235 at 7-10 (Fed. Cir., April 7, 2010) (“the ITC’s

consideration of the likely differing conditions of competition in deciding whether to cumulate the subject imports as

part of the sunset review determination was a reasonable and permissible interpretation of the discretion conferred by

§ 1675a(a)(7). . . .” Id. at 10.), aff’g, 594 F. Supp.2d 1320 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United

States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in

selecting the types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject

imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1369-72 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009);

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); United States Steel Corp. v.

United States, Slip Op. 08-82 (Aug. 5, 2008).

 3

 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Review),

USITC Pub. 3731 (Oct. 2004) (“First Five-Year Review Determinations”) at 25.

 4

 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 17.

 5

 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 17. In part, the reduction in capacity was due to

the revocation of the antidumping order with respect to a major producer and exporter, PT Zeta Agro, in February

2002. Id.

 6 CR/PR, Figures I-1, I-2, Tables I-4, I-5.

34

competition in the U.S. market if the orders are revoked.2

 The record in these expedited reviews contains

very little current information about the industries in any of the four subject countries. Therefore, my

analysis relies primarily on the record in the first five-year reviews, in which the Commission found that

there have been changes in the conditions of competition among imports since the orders were imposed.3

Specifically, I found that the Chinese and Indian industries appeared to have grown significantly

since the original period of investigation.4

 By contrast, the capacity of subject Indonesian producers had

remained considerably smaller.5

 I also found differences between the relatively steady import pattern for

Indonesia, on the one hand, and the large fluctuations in import volume for China and India, on the other

hand. Differences in import patterns were likely to occur in the future given the changes in subject

producers’ capacity since the original investigation. These disparities indicated that the Indonesian

industry would not be able to increase exports by the magnitude that the Chinese or Indian industries

actually increased exports during the period of the first reviews, nor would have the ability to do so in the

reasonably foreseeable future.

There is no evidence in these reviews of a change in these likely conditions of competition since

the first reviews.6

 Moreover, I join in the Commission majority’s findings in Sections III.A-D and

therefore concur with the finding that there is no reasonable overlap in channels of distribution between

subject imports from Chile and Indonesia, and the finding that subject imports from any of the subject

countries are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of

revocation of the orders. Therefore, I again exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from

Chile, China and India, and to assess the likely subject imports from Indonesia separately from any other

country. Based on my cumulation determination, I have examined the likelihood of continuation or

recurrence of material injury if the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Indonesia is revoked.

II. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM INDONESIA IS

REVOKED

I join in Section IV.A-B of the Commission’s Views, which discusses the legal standards and

conditions of competition. I also join in Section IV.C-E of the Commission’s Views with respect to its

analysis and determinations insofar as it addresses likely volume, price effects, and impact of subject

imports from Chile, China, and India, as well as its discussion of the Commission’s original

determinations and prior reviews with respect to likely volume, price effect, and impact of subject imports

from Indonesia.
 7

 CR/PR, Table I-3.

 8

 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-776-779, USITC Pub.

3159 (Feb. 1999) (“Original Determinations”) at 18.

 9

 CR/PR, Table I-3; CR at I-33 n.67, PR at I-27 n.67.

 10 CR/PR, Table I-3.

 11 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 29.

 12 CR/PR, Table I-2.

 13 CR/PR, Table I-5.

 14 CR/PR, Table I-5.

35

On the limited record of these expedited reviews, I determine that upon revocation of the order,

subject imports from Indonesia will likely (1) be significant in volume, (2) have significant adverse price

effects on the domestic like product, and (3) have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time. Accordingly, I determine that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on preserved mushrooms from Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports from Indonesia

During the original period of investigation, the quantity of subject imports from Indonesia

declined from 30.8 million pounds in 1995 to 26.9 million pounds in 1996, increased to 31.8 million

pounds in 1997. U.S. market penetration for these imports increased from 12.8 percent in 1995 to 15.5

percent in 1997.7

 The Commission's original determination on Indonesia found subject import volume to

be significant, based on a cumulated analysis of subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia.8

During the first reviews, subject imports from Indonesia fluctuated within a fairly narrow range

from 1998 through 2001, ranging from a low of 22.4 million pounds (in 2001) to a high of 29.1 million

pounds (in 1999). The volume in 1999, while above that for the preceding year, was still below the levels

during two of the three full years of the original period of investigation. The revocation of the order with

respect to Indonesian producer PT Zeta Agro, effective February 1, 2002, caused subject import volume

to decline appreciably. Subject import volume declined to *** pounds in 2002 and then to *** pounds in

2003.9

 In 2003, subject imports from Indonesia accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption.10

During the first review, the Commission recognized that capacity of subject producers in

Indonesia declined but concluded that the Indonesian producers' projections of likely increases in their

exports to the United States were overly conservative for purposes of projecting what would likely

happen upon revocation of the antidumping duty order. Consequently, the Commission determined that,

if the antidumping order were revoked, the likely volume of subject imports from Indonesia would have

increased substantially over then-current levels and would have been significant in absolute terms.11

The record in these second five-year reviews shows that subject imports from Indonesia

fluctuated from a low of *** pounds (in 2006) to a high of *** pounds (in 2004) and were slightly higher

in 2008 than in 2003 (*** pounds vs. *** pounds).12 Subject imports from Indonesia represented ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008, the only year during the period of review which we can

compute this figure. The 2008 market share is higher than the U.S. market share of subject imports from

Indonesia in 2002 and 2003.

The limited information available in this expedited review concerning the industry in Indonesia

indicates that its total exports *** between 2003 and 2008.13 Thus, the Indonesian industry appears to

continue to have the ability to direct substantial additional exports to the United States upon revocation of

the orders. The information available also suggests that the industry in Indonesia is export oriented, as

the record indicates that Indonesia exported the *** majority of its production during the years for which

data are available.14 The record also indicates that imports from Indonesia are subject to barriers to
 15 CR at I-36, PR at I-29.

 16 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 18-19.

 17 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at V-14.

 18 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 31.

 19 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 32.

 20 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 20-21.

36

importation in other export markets, as Indonesian imports have been subject to a tariff-rate quota in the

European Union since 2006.15

In light of the foregoing considerations, I conclude that if the order is revoked, the likely volume

of subject imports from Indonesia would be significant.

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports from Indonesia

In the original determinations and its first five-year reviews, the Commission found that price was

an important factor in purchasing decisions and that subject imports from all sources were at least

moderate substitutes for the domestic like product.16 Nothing in the record for these reviews leads me to

question these findings, or conclude that they are no longer applicable, with respect to subject imports

from Indonesia.

Because no pricing data were collected during these expedited reviews, the only pricing data

available are from the original investigations and the first five-year reviews. In the original

investigations, subject imports from Indonesia undersold the domestic like product in 16 of 42 quarterly

comparisons.17 In the first five-year reviews, subject imports from Indonesia undersold the domestic like

product in 36 of 72 quarterly comparisons.18 Based on this pricing information, the Commission

concluded in its first five-year reviews that revocation of the order would likely have had significant

price-depressing effects on the domestic like product.19 Nothing in the record for these reviews leads me

to determine that this previous conclusion is no longer valid. Accordingly, for the same reasons as in the

first five-year review, I find that if the order is revoked, the subject imports are likely to enter the United

States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of

the domestic like product.

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports from Indonesia

In its original determination concerning Indonesia, the Commission found that the cumulated

subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia gained market share at the expense of the domestic

industry. The Commission also found that there were declines in the domestic industry’s production,

shipments, capacity utilization, and employment, and that the combination of declining output and falling

prices led to a deterioration in the domestic industry’s operating performance. Operating margins declined

throughout the original period of investigation. In 1997, the operating margin had declined to 1.3 percent

and at least half of the domestic producers sustained operating losses.20

In the first five-year review, the Commission determined that, if the order was revoked, the

volume of subject imports from Indonesia would likely increase significantly. The Commission

explained that these subject imports will likely undersell the domestic like product with increasing

frequency, and will likely have significant price-depressing effects. In light of their likely volume and

price effects, the Commission concluded that, upon revocation of the antidumping duty order, subject

imports from Indonesia will likely exacerbate the declines in domestic industry output, employment, and

market share observed during the latter portion of the period of review and would likely cause the

domestic industry’s already unprofitable financial performance to deteriorate further. Accordingly, the
 21 First Five-Year Review Determinations, USITC Pub. 3731 at 33.

37

Commission found that revoking the antidumping duty order on preserved mushrooms from Indonesia

would likely have had a significant adverse effect on the domestic industry.21

There is limited new information available in this review. I join the Commission majority’s

determination in these reviews that the limited data available in these expedited reviews do not support a

finding that the domestic industry is in a vulnerable condition. For the same reasons as in the first review,

I conclude that additional volumes of subject imports from Indonesia are likely, at prices that will likely

undersell those of the domestic like product, and will likely cause further declines in the domestic

industry’s performance indicators. Accordingly, I find that subject imports from Indonesia are likely to

have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the

order is revoked.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, I determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved

mushrooms from Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

SEPARATE AND CONCURRING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended ("the Act"), requires that the U.S. Department

of Commerce ("Commerce") revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty finding in a five-year

("sunset") review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy would be likely

to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission") determines that material

injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

 Based

on the record in these second five-year reviews, I determine that material injury is likely to continue or recur

within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders on subject imports of certain preserved mushrooms from

Chile, China, India, and Indonesia are revoked. 

I join in the discussion found in Sections I, II, and IV of the majority opinion. However, I do not reach

the same conclusion as my colleagues with regard to cumulation of subject imports. In these reviews, I 

cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, India and Indonesia because the record indicates that subject

imports from these countries compete or would compete with one another and with the domestic like product.

In contrast to the original investigations, and the determination of my colleagues in the first five-year reviews,

I again determine that subject imports from Indonesia do compete, or are likely to compete, with the domestic

like product and with each other. 

CUMULATION

With regard to the "Framework" of the provisions of the Act and Commission

determinations with regard to cumulation, I join in the discussion of my colleagues in Section III.A. of the

majority views. Likewise, with regard to the "Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact," I join in the

discussion in Section III.B. of the majority views. Indeed, the majority found that in the case of Chile,

China, India, and Indonesia, subject imports would not be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on

the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. I concur with that decision. 

I disagree with the majority views regarding reasonable overlap of competition and cumulation. I

find that subject imports from China, India, Chile and Indonesia should be 

cumulated.

The Commission generally examines four factors in determining whether there will be a likely

reasonable overlap of competition. These factors are fungibility, geographic overlap, channels of

distribution, and simultaneous presence in the market. In addition to these factors, the Commission also

determines in five-year reviews whether there are any other considerations that would lead it to exercise

its discretion to cumulate subject imports from one or more countries.

Both the original investigations and the majority views in this review found the fungibility factor

for cumulation to be satisfied. I concur with the discussion of my colleagues regarding fungibility.

Likewise, I concur with the discussion in the majority view of the Commission regarding geographic

overlap and likely simultaneous presence. These factors are also satisfied for purposes of cumulation of

all subject imports.

With respect to channels of distribution, the evidence also supports cumulation of imports from all

four countries. First, I note that the Coalition stated in the original investigation, and the Commission found

, that while imports from Chile were concentrated in sales to the food service sector, Chile also manufactured

and sold retail sized cans or jars of mushrooms to the retail sector.2

 Similarly, while imports from Indonesia

 1 119 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2

 Domestic Industry’s Comments, at 11, citing Final Determination at 8.

39
were concentrated in sales to the retail sector, Indonesia also manufactured and sold preserved mushrooms

to the food service channel where imports from Chile were focused.3

In these reviews, the Coalition asserted that if the order on Chile were revoked, subject imports

from Chile will likely be sold in the U.S. retail channel. Chilean producer, CPM Inversiones Bosque del

Mauco S.A., formerly Nature's Farm, states that its sales to the retail sector are "showing rapid strong

development" and that supermarket (retail) outlets in Chile "represent the highest volume of mushrooms

sold" in total for both preserved and fresh mushrooms. See Coalition Nov.2 submission, Exh. 4. The

ability of both Chile and Indonesia to sell to common sectors and actual sales to both sectors indicate that

both countries would sell to both distribution channels again if revocation occurred. The lack of any

information regarding an existing retail distribution network within the United States for subject imports

from Chile does not dissuade me from this conclusion. Distribution through existing marketers and

wholesalers in the United States is a reasonable expectation for subject imports from Chile if the

antidumping order were revoked. Therefore, I find that it is likely that subject imports from Chile will

enter the U.S. retail channel of distribution should the antidumping order be revoked.

 I also find, as the Coalition maintained, and I found in the previous review, that not all the

Indonesian product sold in the retail channel of distribution is sold in sizes typically used by home

consumers. The lack of new information in this review does not suggest to me that imports from

Indonesia, sold in cans above 255 grams, during the first review, do not compete in the retail channel

through club stores such as Costco, and through sales to other purchasers such as small restaurants.

Consequently, I again find that the Indonesian product sold through the retail channel of distribution will

compete for the same customers with product from other sources sold through the food service channel of

distribution. This fact is a sufficient basis for me to conclude that subject imports from Indonesia would

have a substantial presence in the food service channel of distribution should the orders be revoked.

Based on information developed in the original investigations showing actual sales by both Chile and

Indonesia in both the retail and food service sectors, as well as additional information on this record

showing expanded sales by Chile into the retail channel on which Indonesia focuses, I find that there

would likely be a reasonable overlap in channels of distribution by imports from all four countries. 

With regard to "Other Considerations," I find that there are not significant differences in current

and likely conditions of competition between subject imports from Chile, China, India or Indonesia.

Consequently, I have exercised my discretion to cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, India and

Indonesia.

 3Id.

40
 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675 (c).

 2

 74 FR 50818, October 1, 2009. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the

information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping duty orders concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. 74 FR 50776, October 1, 2009.

 4

 The Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade and its individual members: L.K. Bowman Co., Monterey

Mushrooms Inc., the Mushroom Co., and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. (collectively “the Coalition”), submitted the only

response to the Commission’s notice of institution for the subject reviews. The Coalition is represented by the law

firm of Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP. The Coalition’s response included not only company-specific data from the

four Coalition member companies ***. 

 5

 The Commission received no responses to its notice of institution from respondent interested parties.

 6

 The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 10 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 8

 On January 15, 2010, the Commission issued a notice of scheduling of the expedited reviews (75 FR 3756,

January 22, 2010). On February 17, 2010, the Commission issued a notice of revised scheduling of the expedited

reviews (75 FR 8111, February, 23, 2010). The Commission’s notices appear in app. A. 

I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

 INTRODUCTION

Background

On October 1, 2009, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it

had instituted five-year reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to a continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On January 4, 2010, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to the notice of institution for

each review was adequate;4

 the Commission also determined that the respondent interested party response

was inadequate for each of the orders subject to review.5

 The Commission found no other circumstances

that would warrant conducting full reviews.6

 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would

conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.7 8

 The Commission voted on these

reviews on March 26, 2010, and notified Commerce of its determinations on April 9, 2010. Selected

information relating to the schedule of the current reviews is presented on the following page.

Effective date Action

October 1, 2009 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (74 FR 50818, October 1, 2009)

October 1, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation (74 FR 50776, October 1, 2009)

December 18, 2009 Commerce’s final results for expedited five-year reviews (74 FR 67170)

January 4, 2010 Commission’s determination to conduct expedited five-year reviews and

scheduling of expedited reviews (75 FR 3756, January 22, 2010). Notice of

revised schedule (75 FR 8111, February 23, 2010)

March 26, 2010 Date of Commission’s vote

April 9, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce
 9

 The petitions were filed by counsel on behalf of the Coalition and its members: L.K. Bowman, Inc.,

Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc., Toughkenamon, PA; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Watsonville,

CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp., Temple, PA; Mushroom Canning Co., Kennett Square, PA; Southwood Farms,

Hockessin, DE.; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; and United Canning Corp., North Lima, OH. Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, Investigation No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Publication 3144, November

1998 (“Publication 3144”), p. I-1, and Certain Preserved Mushrooms From China, India, and Indonesia,

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final), USITC Publication 3159, February 1999 (“Publication 3159”), p. I-1.

 10 63 FR 56613, October 22, 1998.

 11 63 FR 72246, December 31, 1998.

 12 63 FR 66575, December 2, 1998.

 13 64 FR 9178, February 24, 1999.

 14 63 FR 66529, December 2, 1998.

 15 64 FR 8308 (China), 64 FR 8311 (India), and 64 FR 8310 (Indonesia), February 19, 1999.

 16 On February 1, 2002, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order with respect to PT Zeta Agro Corp.

(Indonesia).

 17 68 FR 62322, November 3, 2003.

 18 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping duty orders concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. 68 FR 62280, November 3, 2003.

 19 69 FR 7793, February 19, 2004.

 20 69 FR 11384, March 10, 2004.

 21 69 FR 63408, November 1, 2004.

 22 69 FR 67308, November 17, 2004.

I-2

The Original Investigations and First Five-Year Reviews

On January 6, 1998, petitions were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason

of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and

Indonesia.9

 On October 19, 1998, Commerce made an affirmative final LTFV determination regarding

certain preserved mushrooms from Chile,10 and on December 28, 1998, Commerce made affirmative final

LTFV determinations regarding certain preserved mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia.11 The

Commission completed its original investigation concerning preserved mushrooms from Chile on

November 25, 1998,12 and completed its original investigations concerning preserved mushrooms from

China, India, and Indonesia on February 11, 1999,13 determining that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and

Indonesia. Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile

on December 2, 1998,14 and issued antidumping duty orders on imports of preserved mushrooms from

China, India, and Indonesia on February 19, 1999.15 16

On November 3, 2003, the Commission instituted its first five-year reviews to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, 

and Indonesia would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic

industry.17 18 On February 6, 2004, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews.19 On

March 10, 2004, Commerce made affirmative expedited review determinations regarding imports of

certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.20 On October 28, 2004, the

Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain preserved mushrooms

from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.21 On November

8, 2004, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of preserved

mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.22
I-3

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Chile

Commerce has conducted one administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from Chile, as shown in the following tabulation:

Period of review Date results published Margins (percent) 

December 1, 1999 to

November 30, 2000 May 10, 2002 

(67 FR 31769)

Nature’s Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148.511

Ravine Foods ............... 148.51 

Chile-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148.51

 1 Includes Chilean merchandise shipped by the Colombian firm, Compania Envasadora del Atlantico.
 23 Commerce rescinded two administrative reviews (73 FR 43210, July 24, 2008) (74 FR 41123, August 14,

2009).

 24 Commerce found duty absorption in the fourth administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from

China, on those sales for which Gerber was the importer of record (69 FR 54635, September 9, 2004).

I-4

China

 Commerce has conducted eight administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from China, as shown in the following tabulation:23 24

Period of review Date results published Margins (percent) 

May 7, 1998 to

January 31, 2000

August 17, 2000 

(65 FR 50183)

Mei Wei Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

Tak Fat Trading Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

August 5, 1998 to

January 31, 2000

July 6, 2001 

(66 FR 35595)

China Processed Food Import &

Export Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00

Gerber (Yunnan) Co. ........................ 121.33

Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.80

February 1, 2000 to

January 31, 2001

August 9, 2002 

(67 FR 51833)

Gerber (Yunnan) Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00

Shantou Hongda Industrial General . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00

Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00

Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. ................ 161.57

February 1, 2001 to

January 31, 2002

July 11, 2003 

(68 FR 41304)

amended by January 25, 

2010 (75 FR 3896)

Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00

Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.37

Shantou Hongda Industrial General ............. 122.07

Gerber (Yunnan) Co. ........................ 198.63

Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou), Ltd. ........... 198.63

Guangxi Yulin .............................. 198.63

China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

February 1, 2002 to

January 31, 2003

September 9, 2004

(69 FR 54635)

amended by January 25,

2010

(75 FR 3896)

China Processed Food Import &

Export Co. and designated affiliates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.92

Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00

Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.50

Shantou Hongda Industrial General ............. 198.63

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.84

Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou), Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 15.83

Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.22

China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

February 1, 2003 to

January 31, 2004

September 14, 2005 

(70 FR 54365)

amended by October 17,

2005 (70 FR 60280), and

December 28, 2005 

(70 FR 76772)

COFCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.67

China Processed Food Import & Export Co. . . . . . . . 1.50

Green Fresh Foods (Zangzhou) Co. Ltd. ......... 167.72

Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods (Zangzhou) . . . 21.38

Shendong Jinfa Edible Fungus Corp. Ltd. . . . . . . . . 3.60

Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co. Ltd. . . . 0.00

Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. ........... 198.63

China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

February 1, 2004 to 

January 31, 2005

July 17, 2006 

(71 FR 40477)

Raoping Yucun ............................. 113.84

China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

February 1, 2005 to

January 31, 2006

August 9, 2007

(72 FR 44827)

China Processed Food Import & Export Co. . . . . . . . 19.02

Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.02

Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.02

China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63
 25 Commerce issued a final determination in a changed-circumstances review in which it determined that KICM

(MADRAS), Ltd. was the successor-in-interest to Hindustan Lever, Ltd. for purposes of determining antidumping

duty liability. Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 68 FR

6884, February 11, 2003. 

 26 Commerce found duty absorption in the fourth administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from

India. However, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit directed Commerce to annul all findings and

conclusions made pursuant to the duty absorption inquiry (73 FR 11869, March 5, 2008). 

I-5

India

 Commerce has conducted seven administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from India, as shown in the following tabulation:25 26

Period of review Date results published Margins (percent) 

August 5, 1998 to

January 31, 2000

August 13, 2001 

(66 FR 42507)

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.26

Himalya International, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 6.63

Hindustan Lever, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29

Techtran Agro Industries, Ltd. . . . . . . 66.24

Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 26.44

India-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.30

February 1, 2000 to

January 31, 2001

July 12, 2002 

(67 FR 46172)

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 27.80

Himalya International, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 0.68

Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd. . . . . . 66.24

Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 0.00

February 1, 2001 to

January 31, 2002

July 11, 2003 

(68 FR 41303)

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02

Himalya International, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 0.08

Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 34.66

February 1, 2002 to

January 31, 2003

August 20, 2004 

(69 FR 51630)

amended by September 14, 

2004 (69 FR 55405)

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 33.47

Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . . 66.24

Premier Mushroom Farms . . . . . . . . . 25.73

Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd. . . . . . 66.24

Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 9.35

February 1, 2003 to

January 31, 2004

June 30, 2005 

(70 FR 37757)

Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 0.62

Premier Mushroom Farms . . . . . . . . . 41.67

Flex Foods Ltd. .................. 114.76

Weikfield Agro Products . . . . . . . . . . . 25.69

February 1, 2004 to

January 31, 2005

March 2, 2006

(71 FR 10647)

Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 0.76

February 1, 2005 to

January 31, 2006

February 5, 2007

(72 FR 5268)

Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 0.61
 27 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A.

I-6

Indonesia

 Commerce has conducted three administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from Indonesia, as shown in the following tabulation:

Period of review Date results published Margins (percent) 

August 5, 1998 to

January 31, 20001

July 13, 2001 (66 FR 36754) PT Dieng Djaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.44

PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa . . . . . . 0.44

PT Indo Evergreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.16

PT Zeta Agro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02

Indonesia-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.26

February 1, 2000 to

January 31, 2001

May 13, 2002 (67 FR 32014) PT Dieng Djaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.59

PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa . . . . . . 0.59

PT Indo Evergreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09

PT Zeta Agro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.27

Indonesia-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.26

February 1, 2001 to

January 31, 2002

July 2, 2003 (68 FR 39521) PT Indo Evergreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.30

PT Zeta Agro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002

Indonesia-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.26

 1 The period of review covered December 31, 1998 through January 31, 2000 for PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya

Jaya Abadi Perkasa.

 2

 Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order with regard to imports from PT Zeta Agro Corp., effective

February 1, 2002. It determined that PT Zeta Agro Corp., had not sold product at less than fair value for three

consecutive administrative reviews. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia: Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 39521, July 2, 2003. 

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Reviews

On December 18, 2009, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 

preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of dumping.27 The weighted-average dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by

Commerce, that would occur if the antidumping duty orders were to be revoked, are presented in the

tabulation on the following page.
I-7

Country and firm

Margin

(percent)

Chile

Nature’s Farm Products (Chile) S.A. 148.51

All others 148.51

China

China Processed Food I&E Co./ Xiamen Jiahua I&E Trading Co., Ltd. 121.47

Tak Fat Trading Co. 162.47

Shenzhen Cofry Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 151.15

Gerber (Yunnan) Food Co. 142.11

Jiangsu Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Group Import & Export Corp. 142.11

Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs I&E Corp. 142.11

Putian Cannery Fujian Province 142.11

Xiamen Gulong I&E Co., Ltd. 142.11

General Canned Foods Factory of Zhangzhou 142.11

Zhejiang Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs I&E Corp. 142.11

Shanghai Foodstuffs I&E Corp. 142.11

Canned Goods Co. of Raoping 142.11

All others 198.63

India

Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. 6.28

KICM (Madras) Ltd.1 14.91

Alpine Biotech Ltd. 243.87

Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. 243.87

All others 11.30

Indonesia

PT Dieng Djaya/PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa 7.94

PT Zeta Agro Corp. revoked2

All others 11.26

1

 Commerce conducted a changed circumstances review and found that KICM (Madras) Ltd. was the successorin-interest to Hindustan Lever Ltd. (formerly known as Ponds (India) Ltd.). 2

 Effective February 1, 2002, the antidumping duty order with respect to PT Zeta Agro Corp. was revoked.
 28 19 CFR 159.64(g).

 29 Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 41957, July 7, 2000. 

 30 Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 52409, August 29, 2000. 

I-8

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds 

to Affected Domestic Producers

Since 2001, qualified U.S. producers of certain preserved mushrooms have been eligible to

receive disbursements from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under the Continued

Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”), also known as the Byrd Amendment.28 The

following tabulation presents CDSOA disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2001-09. 

Fiscal year

Country

Chile China India Indonesia

Value (dollars)

2001 $0 $0 $171,150 $83,079

2002 0 19,895 2,154,765 442,949

2003 170,253 12,268 1,326,207 524,182

2004 0 93,744 242,476 48,678

2005 0 53,179 536,436 456,073

2006 0 16,719 201,637 46,024

2007 0 227,528 128,509 16,700

2008 0 385,877 1,135,061 95,530

2009 0 1,241,828 773,629 0

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/cont_dump, 

COMMERCE’S SCOPE RULINGS

Since the issuance of the antidumping orders, Commerce has issued two scope rulings with

regard to certain preserved mushrooms. On July 13, 1999, Commerce determined that preserved

mushrooms produced in third countries from provisionally preserved mushrooms produced in Chile were

within the scope of the antidumping orders.29 On June 19, 2000, Commerce determined that “marinated

or acidified mushrooms with an acetic acid content under 0.5 percent” were within the scope of the

antidumping orders.30
 31 The discussion in this section is taken largely from the product description as presented in the staff report from

the first five-year review. Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Staff Report,

INV-BB-123, October 4, 2004, pp. I-5-I-18.

 32 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 67170, December 18, 2009. 

I-9

THE PRODUCT31

Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of the subject product (certain preserved mushrooms) as

follows: 

The products covered by this review are imported certain preserved mushrooms 

whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The ‘‘preserved mushrooms’’ covered under

the orders are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning,

blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and

heated in containers, including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid

medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Included within

the scope of these orders are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a

heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Also included

within the scope of these orders, as of June 19, 2000, are marinated, acidified, or pickled

mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid. The mushrooms subject to these

orders were previously classified under statistical reporting numbers 2003.10.0027,

2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and

0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,

the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. As of January 1, 2002,

the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are as follows: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131,

2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, 0711.51.0000.32

Description and Uses

The imported product subject to the antidumping duty orders under review, as defined by

Commerce, consists of certain preserved mushrooms of the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus

bitorquis that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. 

These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers, including but not limited to cans or glass jars

in a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter, or butter sauce. These

mushrooms are imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of the

antidumping duty orders are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution

to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Also included in the scope of the antidumping

orders are marinated, acidified, or pickled mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid.

The term “certain preserved mushrooms” does not include: (1) all other species of mushroom,

including straw mushrooms (HTS statistical reporting number 2003.90.0010); (2) all fresh and chilled

mushrooms (HTS subheading 0709.51.01), including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched” mushrooms; (3)

dried mushrooms (HTS subheading 0712.31.00); and (4) frozen mushrooms (HTS subheading

0710.80.20).
 33 Publication 3144, pp. 3-6. Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-776-779 (Review), USITC Pub. 3044 (“Publication 3044"), October 2004, pp. 4-5.

 34 The Coalition’s response to the Notice of Institution, (“Response”), November 2, 2009.

 35 In the original determinations, the Commission did not exclude any producers from the domestic industry

pursuant to the related parties provisions. Commissioners Crawford and Askey defined the domestic industry by

excluding *** and *** from the definition under the related parties provision. In the first full five-year reviews, the

Commission unanimously determined that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude any producers from the

domestic industry as a related party.

 36 Raw mushrooms were not within the scope of the original investigations. Publication 3144, pp. 4-5. 

 37 Antidumping Duty Petition, Volume I: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia,

submitted on behalf of L.K. Bowman, Inc.; Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc.; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.; Mount

Laurel Canning Corp.; Mushroom Canning Co.; Southwood Farms; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc.; and United Canning

Corp., received January 6, 1998, p. 12.

 38 Publication 3144, p. I-3.

 39 U.S. mushroom growers reported sales of the 2008-09 Agaricus mushroom crop to be 679 million pounds for

the fresh market, or 85 percent of the yield, and 123 million pounds, or 15 percent, for the processing market. 

Mushrooms, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, August 20, 2009.

 40 Publication 3144, p. I-3.

 41 Id. at pp. I-3-I-4.

 42 Id.

 43 Id.

 44 Id.

I-10

In its original determinations and its first full five-year reviews determinations, the Commission

found one domestic like product consisting of preserved mushroom coextensive with the scope

definition.33 In these second five-year reviews, the Coalition stated that it agreed with the Commission’s

earlier domestic like product and domestic industry determinations.34 35

Physical Characteristics, Processing Operations, and End Uses

The imported and domestic products covered in these reviews are preserved36 mushrooms of the

Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis (collectively “Agaricus”) species.37 Raw Agaricus mushrooms

used to produce the subject preserved mushrooms are often white but may also include off-white (cream

and brown) mushrooms.38 U.S. mushroom growers sell most of their mushrooms in the fresh market,

whereas less than 15 percent annually of all Agaricus mushrooms grown in the United States are sold for

processing.39 U.S. standards of identity for raw mushrooms intended for processing range from grade 1-A

(white, closed veil, no blemishes) to grade 2-B (off-white, open veil, blemishes), with most canned stems

and pieces made from grade 2 mushrooms and most canned whole and sliced mushrooms made from

grade 1-B and sometimes grade 1-A mushrooms.40

The processing of mushrooms begins with the procurement of raw product. The largest, bestformed mushrooms are generally sold on the fresh market for prices higher than those for processinggrade mushrooms, resulting in medium to small, broken or blemished mushrooms being more readily

available for canning.41 Domestic industry sources have stated that in times of oversupply to the fresh

market, fresh-market-quality mushrooms that would otherwise be sold to a retailer or food-service buyer

to be used in the fresh form might instead be diverted to a processor.42

In general, mushroom processing involves the cleaning, grading, sorting, sometimes slicing or

dicing, blanching, packing in a liquid medium (including water, brine, and butter or butter sauce) in

airtight containers, and heating or retorting (preserved by heat sterilization) in cans or jars.43 Due to the

perishable nature of raw mushrooms, they are generally processed within 24 hours after harvest.44 Fresh

mushrooms for processing are prepared from raw mushrooms that have been cleaned, inspected, and
 45 Id.

 46 Id.

 47 Id.

 48 Buttons are small whole mushrooms with the stems removed manually. Id. at p. I-3.

 49 Id. U.S. producers reported that by volume, 81.9 percent of their 2003 U.S. shipments were of pieces and

stems, 14.3 percent were sliced mushrooms, and the remaining 3.8 percent were whole mushrooms or other (e.g.,

portobello) mushrooms. U.S. importers reported that 72.7 percent of their 2003 U.S. shipments were of pieces and

stems, 23.0 percent were sliced mushrooms, and the remaining 4.3 percent were of whole mushrooms or other

portobello mushrooms.

I-11

weighed again to determine the net volume of the shipment. The mushrooms are then washed with plain

water and blanched (cooked) to an internal temperature of at least 180 degrees for 7-8 minutes. The

blanching process shrinks the mushrooms by about 40 percent as raw mushrooms consist of about 94-

percent water and excess moisture is lost during this process. The mushrooms are then sliced (if desired

as sliced or as pieces or stems), de-watered, and put though a metal detector to check for extraneous metal

materials.45 Finally, the mushrooms go through a volumetric filler machine, the net weight in the can or

jar is checked, and the packing media (which may include such things as water, a light salt water solution,

ascorbic acid, or other preservatives) is added into the can.46 The container is vacuum sealed with a metal

lid and the cans or jars are heated in a retort cooker until the contents reach commercial sterility. The

product is allowed to cool and the containers labeled, if appropriate, and packed in cardboard cartons or

palletized for shipment.47 Canned mushrooms generally have a shelf life of up to 3 years. Processed

mushrooms are generally tan or gray in color, have a slightly salty taste, and a soft texture. Mushrooms

packed in jars are usually in small container sizes ranging from 2.5 to 8 ounces. Mushrooms packed in

cans are packed predominantly in larger container sizes of 16 ounces and 68 ounces, but also are packed

in 4- and 8-ounce cans.

Processed mushrooms are generally sold in three styles of pack: whole (including buttons),48

sliced and diced or stems and pieces. Whole mushrooms are said to account for the smallest market share

of canned-mushroom sales. Most of the U.S. market for canned mushrooms prefers stems and pieces,

which especially predominate in the industrial and institutional/food-service market.49 The three main

types of purchasers of certain preserved mushrooms are industrial users, food-service customers, and

retailers. Industrial customers generally use canned mushrooms to produce other food products, such as

brand-name and private-label soups and spaghetti sauces. These purchasers are described as generally

buying large volumes of canned mushrooms in large containers. Food-service users, including major

pizza chains, other restaurants, and distributors for institutional applications, also purchase large

quantities of large-volume containers. Finally, sales of mushrooms packed in jars and 4- and 8-ounce

cans tend to be concentrated in retail outlets, including grocery stores, and distributors to such outlets,

where the mushrooms are sold as both national brands and private-label products principally to individual

customers for home consumption.

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

In the original investigations all responding U.S. producers reported that preserved mushrooms

from all sources are used interchangeably. Importers showed more divergence in views. The sole

importer of Eleven of 15 importers reported that subject merchandise from China was interchangeable

with domestically-produced mushrooms and four reported that it was not. Ten of 20 importers reported

that subject merchandise from India was interchangeable with domestically-produced mushrooms, and ten

reported it was not. Ten of 22 importers reported that subject merchandise from Indonesia was

interchangeable with domestically-produced, and 12 reported that it was not. A majority of purchasers

reported that imports from each of the subject countries were at least moderate substitutes for the
 50 Publication 3144, p. 11, Publication 3159, pp. 8-10.

 51 Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-776-779

(Review), USITC Publication 3171, October 2004 (“Publication 3171”), p. 14.

 52 “With respect to the various subject country combinations, the Commission found a significant overlap

between Chile and China and between Chile and India in the food-service channel, and between China and India,

China and Indonesia, and India and Indonesia in the retail channel. The Commission did not find a reasonable

overlap of channels of distribution between subject imports from Chile and subject imports from Indonesia, as the

product from the former source was overwhelmingly concentrated in the industrial and food-service channels, and

the product from the latter source was overwhelmingly concentrated in the retail channel.” Publication 3144, p. 19.

 53 Publication 3144, p. 20.

 54 Publication 3159, p. 14.

 55 Publication 3159, p. 19.

 56 Publication 3171, p. 26. Not all Commissioners used the same database for making pricing comparisons. See

id. at 26 n.148.

I-12

domestically-produced product. All U.S. producers reported that imported preserved mushrooms from all

subject sources were used interchangeably, sixteen of 23 responding importers agreed.50

In the first full five-year reviews, a majority of purchasers and U.S. producers reported that U.S.-

produced preserved mushrooms were always interchangeable with imports from each of the subject

countries. A majority of U.S. importers reported that U.S.-produced mushrooms were always or

frequently interchangeable with imports from each of the subject countries. For each possible subject

country combination, a majority of each type of market participants reported that imports from different

subject countries were always or frequently interchangeable.51

Channels of Distribution

Preserved mushrooms are sold to industrial users, food-service customers, and retailers. In both

the original investigations and the first full five-year reviews, there was substantial presence by the

domestically-produced product in all three channels of distribution. During the period examined in the

original investigation and the first full five-year reviews, the Commission found that channels of

distribution did not overlap for subject imports from Chile and Indonesia, but did for all other possible

subject country combinations.52 

Price

In its original determination on subject imports from Chile, the Commission found that the

subject imports it cumulated (those from Chile, China, and India), undersold the domestic like product in

51 out of 94 quarterly comparisons.53 In its original determinations on China and India, the Commission

found that the subject imports it cumulated (those from all four subject countries), undersold the domestic

like product in 67 quarterly comparisons, oversold the domestic like product in 67 quarterly comparisons,

and in two comparisons were priced the same. With respect to the 68 ounce stems and pieces pricing

product to which the Commission gave particular focus, the cumulated subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 27 out of 50 quarterly comparisons.54 In its original determination on Indonesia,

the Commission found that the subject imports it cumulated (those from China, India, and Indonesia)

undersold the domestic like product in 61 out of 118 quarterly comparisons.55

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and

India for purposes of the determinations on those countries. It found that the cumulated subject imports

undersold the domestic like product in over 65 percent of quarterly comparisons.56 The Commission did

not cumulate subject imports from Indonesia with those from any other subject country. it found that the

subject imports from Indonesia undersold the domestic like product in 16 out of 42 quarterly
 57 Publication 3731, p. 30.

 58 Response, November 2, 2009, pp. 15-16.

 59 Response, November 2, 2009, pp. 21-22.

 60 Response, November 2, 2009, p. 25.

I-13

comparisons.57 According to the Coalition in these current five-year reviews, subject imports have

continued to compete aggressively on the basis of price an domestic prices are currently depressed to their

lowest levels in roughly 15 years.58 

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

During the period examined in the original investigations, the U.S. preserved mushroom industry

was comprised of 13 producers. After the original investigations, the structure of the domestic industry

changed substantially through company closures and acquisitions; Ron Son ***; Mount Laurel Canning

was purchased by Monterrey in 1998; Modern Mushrooms closed its cannery operation in 2000;

Southwood Farms ceased company operations in 2002; and ***. By the time of the Commissions’ first

full five-year reviews of the orders completed in October 2004, the domestic industry was comprised of

six producers. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these five-year reviews, the

Coalition reported that there are currently six domestic producers of preserved mushrooms: Creekside,

Giorgio, LK Bowman, Monterey, the Mushroom Co., and Sunny Dell. No company entered or exited the

industry from 2004 to 2008. Mushroom Canning Company changed its name to The Mushroom

Company in November 2006. The company Son Top LLC is the mushroom processing facility of

Creekside Mushrooms, Ltd. In terms of related parties, the Coalition reported that none of the domestic

producers is related to a foreign producer/exporter and none is related to an importer of the subject

merchandise. However, they reported that ***.

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Data reported by U.S. producers of preserved mushrooms in the Commission’s original

investigation, first full five-year reviews, and in response to the second five-year reviews’ institution

notice are presented in table I-1.

During the current five-year reviews, industry data are available for 2008.59 Many industry

indicators have declined since the end of the first five-year reviews: capacity (11.6 percent), production

(10.8 percent), quantity of U.S. shipments (26.2 percent), value of U.S. shipments (6.8 percent), value of

net sales (15.1 percent), and cost of goods sold (26.2 percent). Other industry indicators have increased

since the end of the first full-review: capacity utilization (0.2 percentage points), unit values of U.S.

shipments (26.5 percent), gross profit (222.6 percent), and SG&A (3.3 percent). The Coalition reported

that the gradual decline in demand for preserved mushrooms from 2003 to 2008 reflects its nature as a

mature product. In addition, ***.60
I-14

Table I-1Preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1998-2003 and 2008

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2

Capacity (1,000 pounds drained weight) 214,973 223,735 203,523 280,404 285,300 287,728 271,155 2

Production (1,000 pounds drained weight) 107,711 84,936 74,711 66,186 67,849 68,932 53,316 Capacity utilization (percent) 50.1 38.0 36.7 23.6 23.8 24.0 19.7 U.S. shipments: Quantity (1,000 pounds drained weight) 95,274 91,865 74,642 66,196 73,525 61,741 56,543  Value ($1,000) 142,013 121,084 90,279 82,859 99,290 81,411 69,031  Unit value ($/pound drained weight) $1.49 $1.32 $1.21 $1.25 $1.35 $1.32 $1.22 

Inventories/U.S. shipments 25.2 17.3 19.1 22.0 12.1 26.1 22.7 

PRWs (number) 518 476 421 330 321 328 270 Hours worked (1,000 hours) 1,113 978 804 435 433 502 430 Wages paid ($1,000) 12,672 10,776 10,525 5,372 5,480 6,999 6,633 Hourly wages $11.39 $11.02 $13.09 $12.35 $12.66 $13.94 $15.43 Productivity (tons per 1,000 hours) 96.8 86.8 92.9 125.6 140.0 133.8 124.0 Unit labor costs (per short ton) $0.12 $0.13 $0.14 $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.12 Net sales Quantity (1,000 pounds drained weight) 90,840 90,551 76,052 68,133 71,437 64,639 57,251  Value ($1,000) 142,110 122,323 94,012 81,714 98,393 87,008 70,610  Unit value ($/pound drained weight) $1.56 $1.35 $1.24 $1.20 $1.38 $1.35 $1.23 Cost of goods sold ($1,000) 121,721 105,728 81,957 74,270 89,167 76,808 64,611 

Gross profit ($1,000) 20,389 16,595 12,055 7,444 9,226 10,200 5,999 SG&A expenses ($1,000) 12,868 12,067 10,815 6,657 7,183 7,447 6,305 Operating Income ($1,000) 7,521 4,528 1,240 787 2,043 2,753 (305) 

1 Not available.

Source: Compiled from data appearing in the Confidential Staff Report, INV-V-089 (November 5, 1998), tables III-1, III-2, III-3, III-4, and VI-1, and Confidenti

4, 2004), tables III-1, III-2, III-3, III-5, III-6, and Response, November 2, 2009, pp. 21-24. 
 61 Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order with regard to imports from PT Zeta Agro Corp., effective

February 1, 2002. 

I-15

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Importers

Thirty-two importers responded to the Commission’s questionnaires in the final phase of the

original investigations accounting for 83 percent of subject imports in 1997. In the Commission’s first

five-year reviews, 19 importers responded accounting for *** percent of subject imports in 2003. In its

response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these second five-year reviews, the Coalition listed

157 importers of preserved mushrooms. 

U.S. Imports

Table I-2 presents import data on preserved mushrooms from 1995 to 2008. Once the orders

were imposed in late 1998 and early 1999, imports from Chile exited the market. In 2008, imports from

China and India exceed the pre-order level of imports, while subject imports from Indonesia were less

than half of pre-order levels.61 From 2003 to 2008 imports of preserved mushrooms from China increased

by 73.4 percent, imports from India decreased by 23.7 percent, and imports from Indonesia increased by

*** percent. At the same time, the value of these imports increased by 147.9 percent (China), 22.9

percent (India), and *** percent (Indonesia).
I-16

Table I-2Preserved mushrooms: U.S. imports, by sources, 1995-2008

Source

Calendar year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Quantity (1,000 pounds, drained weight)

China 66,923 67,491 67,209 48,046 320 8,330 19,364 20,594 48,139 60,990 60,410 Hong Kong 8,664 5,262 3,901 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Subtotal 75,587 72,753 71,109 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Chile 10,660 7,101 5,429 6,516 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 India 5,951 4,368 9,949 12,559 32,023 34,439 29,479 23,885 27,010 33,691 27,114 Indonesia (subject) 30,756 26,893 31,791 26,666 29,096 29,043 22,417 *** *** *** ***  Subtotal 122,953 111,115 118,279 93,786 61,439 71,812 71,259 *** *** *** *** Indonesia (nonsubject) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** 

All othersources 21,826 14,763 11,590 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 47,549 42,838 27,018 20,413  Total 144,780 125,879 129,869 115,600 107,102 136,948 118,721 114,615 140,216 145,469 131,852 

Value ($1,000)3

China 77,071 63,038 55,701 37,520 433 7,617 19,117 19,516 43,339 53,107 50,087 Hong Kong 10,508 4,532 2,620 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)  Subtotal 87,580 67,570 58,321 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Chile 11,661 7,990 6,252 7,683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 India 8,065 5,400 10,069 13,022 27,873 33,057 27,442 21,051 21,997 28,948 21,857 Indonesia(subject) 47,648 35,197 37,269 30,459 39,321 38,493 28,830 *** *** *** ***  Subtotal 154,954 116,157 111,911 88,685 67,628 79,167 75,389 *** *** *** *** Indonesia(nonsubject) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** 

All othersources 30,476 19,279 15,826 26,158 51,161 67,638 47,239 43,954 39,809 23,911 17,673  Total 185,430 135,436 127,737 114,843 118,789 146,805 122,628 109,220 131,607 133,972 117,347 Table continued on next page.
I-17

Table I-2--ContinuedPreserved mushrooms: U.S. imports, by sources, 1995-2008

Source

Calendar year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Unit value (per pound, drained weight)

China 1.15 0.93 0.83 0.78 $1.35 $0.91 $0.99 $0.95 $0.90 $0.87 $0.83 Hong Kong 1.21 0.86 0.67 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Average 1.16 0.93 0.82 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Chile $1.09 $1.13 $1.15 $1.18 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) -- -- India 1.36 1.24 1.01 1.04 0.87 0.96 0.93 0.88 0.81 0.86 0.81 Indonesia(subject) 1.55 1.31 1.17 1.14 1.35 1.33 1.29 *** *** *** ***  Average 1.26 1.05 0.95 0.95 1.10 1.10 1.06 *** *** *** *** Indonesia(nonsubject) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** 

All othersources 1.40 1.31 1.37

1.20 1.12 1.04 1.00

0.92 0.93 0.89 0.87 

 Average 1.28 1.08 0.98 0.99 1.11 1.07 1.03 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.89 

Share of quantity (percent)

China 46.2 53.6 51.8 41.6 0.3 6.1 16.3 18.0 34.3 41.9 45.8 Hong Kong 6.0 4.2 3.0 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Subtotal 52.2 57.8 54.8 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Chile 7.4 5.6 4.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 India 4.1 3.5 7.7 10.9 29.9 25.1 24.8 20.8 19.3 23.2 20.6 Indonesia(subject)

21.2 21.4 24.5

23.1 27.2 21.2 18.9 *** *** *** *** 

 Subtotal 84.9 88.3 91.1 81.1 57.4 52.4 60.0 *** *** *** *** Indonesia(nonsubject) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** *** 

All othersources 15.1 11.7 8.9 18.9 42.6 47.6 40.0 41.5 30.6 18.6 15.5  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table continued on next page.
I-18

Table I-2--ContinuedPreserved mushrooms: U.S. imports, by sources, 1995-2008

Source

Calendar year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Share of value (percent)

China 41.6 46.5 43.6 32.7 0.4 5.2 15.6 17.9 32.9 39.6 42.7 Hong Kong 5.7 3.3 2.1 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Subtotal 47.2 49.9 45.7 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Chile 6.3 5.9 4.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 India 4.3 4.0 7.9 11.3 23.5 22.5 22.4 19.3 16.7 21.6 18.6 Indonesia(subject) 25.7 26.0 29.2 26.5 33.1 26.2 23.5 *** *** *** ***  Subtotal 83.6 85.8 87.6 77.2 56.9 53.9 61.5 *** *** *** *** Indonesia(nonsubject) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** *** 

All othersources 16.4 14.2 12.4 22.8 43.1 46.1 38.5 40.2 30.2 17.8 15.1  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1 Hong Kong data presented in all other sources.2 Not applicable. 3 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from adjusted Commerce statistics, and from data appearing in the Confidential Staff Report, INV-V-089 (November 5, 1998) table IV-1, and Confid4, 2004), table IV-1, and Response, November 2, 2009, pp. 21-24. U.S. imports from Indonesia for 2002- 2008 were adjusted to remove U.S. imports from PT Zeta AgIndonesia. U.S. imports from PT Zeta Agro were compiled using information provided by Customs. These imports are reported under Indonesia (nonsubject).
 62 Response, November 2, 2009, p. 25.

I-19

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption of preserved mushrooms during the original investigations, the first

full five-year review, and 2008 are shown in table I-3. Apparent U.S. consumption quantity in 2008 was

less than apparent consumption during the original period, and was 4.8 percent less than apparent

consumption in 2003. The domestic producers’ market share based on quantity fell from 25.4 percent in

2003 to 19.7 percent in 2008. The market share of imports from China rose from 25.6 percent in 2003 to

46.6 percent in 2008, and imports from Indonesia rose from *** percent to *** percent, whereas the

market share of imports from India fell from 14.4 percent to 11.5 percent. The Coalition reported that the

gradual decline in demand for preserved mushrooms from 2003 to 2008 reflects its nature as a mature

product. In addition, ***.62
I-20

Table I-3Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 19

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Quantity (1,000 pounds, drained weight)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 95,274 91,865 74,642 66,196 73,525 61,741 56,543 U.S. imports from-- China 66,923 67,491 67,209 48,046 320 8,330 19,364  Hong Kong 8,664 5,262 3,901 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Subtotal 75,587 72,753 71,109 (1) (1) (1) (1)  Chile 10,660 7,101 5,429 6,516 0 0 0  India 5,951 4,368 9,949 12,559 32,023 34,439 29,479  Indonesia (subject) 30,756 26,893 31,791 26,666 29,096 29,043 22,417  Subtotal 122,953 111,115 118,279 93,786 61,439 71,812 71,259  Indonesia (nonsubject) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 

 Other sources 21,826 14,763 11,590 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 

Total imports 144,780 125,879 129,869 115,600 107,102 136,948 118,721 

Apparent consumption 240,054 217,744 204,511 181,796 180,627 198,689 175,264 

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 142,013 121,084 90,279 82,859 99,290 81,411 69,031 U.S. imports from-- China 77,071 63,038 55,701 37,520 433 7,617 19,117  Hong Kong 10,508 4,532 2,620 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Subtotal 87,580 67,570 58,321 (1) (1) (1) (1)  Chile 11,661 7,990 6,252 7,683 0 0 0  India 8,065 5,400 10,069 13,022 27,873 33,057 27,442  Indonesia (subject) 47,648 35,197 37,269 30,459 39,321 38,493 28,830  Subtotal 154,954 116,157 111,911 88,685 67,628 79,167 75,389  Indonesia (nonsubject) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 

 Other sources 30,476 19,279 15,826 26,158 51,161 67,638 47,239 

Total imports 185,430 135,436 127,737 114,843 118,789 146,805 122,628 

Apparent consumption 327,443 256,520 218,016 197,702 218,079 228,216 191,659 Table continued on next page.
I-21

Table I-3--ContinuedPreserved mushrooms: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 1995-2003 and 2008

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2

Share of Quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 39.7 42.2 36.5 36.4 40.7 31.1 32.3 U.S. imports from-- China 27.9 31.0 32.9 26.4 0.2 4.2 11.0  Hong Kong 3.6 2.4 1.9 (1) (1) (1) (1)  Subtotal 31.5 33.4 34.8 (1) (1) (1) (1)  Chile 4.4 3.3 2.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0  India 2.5 2.0 4.9 6.9 17.7 17.3 16.8  Indonesia (subject) 12.8 12.4 15.5 14.7 16.1 14.6 12.8  Subtotal 51.2 51.0 57.8 51.6 34.0 36.1 40.7  Indonesia (nonsubject) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 

 Other sources 9.1 6.8 5.7 12.0 25.3 32.8 27.1 

Total imports 60.3 57.8 63.5 63.6 59.3 68.9 67.7 

Share of Value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 43.4 47.2 41.4 41.9 45.5 35.7 36.0 U.S. imports from-- China 23.5 24.6 25.5 19.0 0.2 3.3 10.0  Hong Kong 3.2 1.8 1.2 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

 Subtotal 26.7 26.3 26.8 (1) (1) (1) (1)  Chile 3.6 3.1 2.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0  India 2.5 2.1 4.6 6.6 12.8 14.5 14.3  Indonesia (subject) 14.6 13.7 17.1 15.4 18.0 16.9 15.0  Subtotal 47.3 45.3 51.3 44.9 31.0 34.7 39.3  Indonesia (nonsubject) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 

 Other sources 9.3 7.5 7.3 13.2 23.5 29.6 24.6 

Total imports 56.6 52.8 58.6 58.1 54.5 64.3 64.0 

1 Hong Kong data presented in all other sources.2 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from adjusted Commerce statistics, and from data appearing in the Confidential Staff Report, INV-V-089 (November 5, 1998), table IV-2, and Confid

4, 2004), tables I-4 and I-5, and Response, November 2, 2009, pp. 21-24. U.S. imports from Indonesia for 2002- 2008 were adjusted to remove U.S. imports from PT Indonesia. U.S. imports from PT Zeta Agro were compiled using information provided by Customs. These imports are reported under Indonesia (nonsubject).
THE INDUSTRY IN CHILE

The Commission’s report for the original investigations presented data from the only known

producer of preserved mushrooms in Chile, Nature’s Farm Products (Chile), S.A.. (“Nature’s Farm”). In

the first full five-year reviews, Nature’s Farm did not provide the Commission with a response to its

questionnaires. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution for these second reviews, the

Coalition identified two firms it believes to be producing the subject merchandise in Chile: Nature’s

Farm and Discom International Ltda. The Coalition reported that Chile exported 5.0 million pounds of

canned mushrooms valued at $4.4 million in 2008. Figure I-1 provides data obtained from the United

63

Nations regarding exports of “canned mushrooms” from Chile to all countries combined. 

Figure I-1

Exports of canned mushrooms from Chile, 1995-2007

Source: INV-BB-123 (October 4, 2004), Figure IV-1, and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Statistics

Division, http://www.fao.org/es/ess/toptrade.asp.

Response, November 2, 2009, exhibit 2.

63

I-22
THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission’s report for the original investigations presented data from three producers in

China. In the first full five-year reviews, the Commission requested data from 12 producers of preserved

mushrooms in China, none of which provided a response. In its response to the Commission’s notice of 64

institution for these second reviews, the Coalition identified 133 firms it believes to be producing the

subject merchandise in China. The Coalition reported that China exported 881 million pounds of canned

mushrooms valued at $591 million in 2008. Figure I-2 provides data obtained from the United Nations

65

regarding exports of “canned mushrooms” from China. As shown, exports of canned mushrooms from

China have increased since 1999, thereby tracking the trend observed in the data on U.S. imports from

China.

These producers are: (1) China Processed Food Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (2) Dalian Mishima Foods, Co.,

64

Ltd.; (3) Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; (4) Fujian Putian Canned Foods

Group Corp.; (5) General Canned Food Factory of Zhangzhou; (6) Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd.; (7) Jiangsu

Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; (8) Shanghai Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; (9) Shenzhen

Cofry, Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs, Co., Ltd.; (10) Tak Fat Trading Co.; (11) Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co.,

Ltd.; and (12) Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Co., Ltd.

In 2008, China exported 127 million pounds of canned mushrooms to the United States, valued at $92.2

65

million, with an average unit value of $0.73. Response, November 2, 2009, exhibit 2.

I-23
Figure I-2

Exports of canned mushrooms from China, 1995-2007

Source: INV-BB-123 (October 4, 2004), Figure IV-2, and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Statistics

Division, http://www.fao.org/es/ess/toptrade.asp.

I-24
 66 ***. 

I-25

THE INDUSTRY IN INDIA

The Commission’s report for the original investigations presented data from two producers in

India. In the first full five-year reviews, the Commission requested data from seven firms and received

data from two Indian firms. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution for these second

reviews, the Coalition identified thirteen firms it believes to be producing the subject merchandise in

India: Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd.; Alpine Biotech, Ltd.; Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd.; Flex Foods, Ltd.;

Himalya International, Ltd.; Hindustan Lever, Ltd.; KICM (Madras), Ltd.; Mandeep Mushrooms, Ltd.;

Premier Mushroom Farms; Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd.; Techtran Agro Industries, Ltd.; Transchem,

Ltd.; and, Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. Data on the preserved mushroom industry in India reported to

the Commission during the original investigation, the first full five-year reviews, and these second

reviews are presented in table I-4.66
I-26

Table I-4Preserved mushrooms: India’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 1995-2003, and 2008

Item

Calendar year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (1,000 pounds, drained weight)

Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End of period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments: Internal consumption (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** ***  Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to-- The United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  European Union (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** ***  Asia (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** ***  All other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Total exports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Value ($1,000)

Exports to the United States (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** *** 

Unit value (per pound, drained weight)

Exports to the United States (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** *** 

* * * * * * *

1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data appearing in the Confidential Staff Report, INV-V-089 (November 5, 1998), table VII-3, Confidential Staff Report INV-BB-12

IV-3, and Response, November 2, 2009, ex. 2.
 67 In 2002, the antidumping duty order was revoked on imports of preserved mushrooms from Indonesian

producer PT Zeta Agro. 

 68 During the first full five-year reviews, PT Dieng Djaya and PT Indo Evergreen both reported ceasing

production of preserved mushrooms in 2003. PT Dieng resumed mushroom production operations in 2007, and the

website of PT Indo Evergreen currently advertises the sale of mushrooms.

I-27

THE INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA

The Commission’s report for the original investigations presented data from four producers in

Indonesia. In the first full five-year reviews, the Commission received data from five Indonesian firms,

accounting for a majority of imports of preserved mushrooms from Indonesia. In its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution for these second reviews, the Coalition identified seven firms it

believes to be producing the subject merchandise in Indonesia: PT Citraraja Ampat Canning, PT Dieng

Djaya, PT Eka Timur Raya, PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp., PT Karya Kompos Bagas, PT

Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa, and PT Tuwuh Agung.67 68 Data on the preserved mushroom industry in

Indonesia reported to the Commission during the original investigations, the first full five-year reviews,

and these second reviews are presented in table I-5.
I-28

Table I-5Preserved mushrooms: Indonesia’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 1995-2003, and 2008

Item

Calendar year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Quantity (1,000 pounds, drained weight)

Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End of period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments: Internal consumption (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** ***  Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to-- The United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  European Union (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** ***  Asia (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** ***  All other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***  Total exports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Value ($1,000)

Exports to the United States (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** *** 

Unit value (per pound, drained weight)

Exports to the United States (1) (1) (1) *** *** *** *** *** 

* * * * * * *

1 Not applicable.

Note: PT Zeta Agro was a subject producer during 1998-2001.Source: Source: Compiled from adjusted Commerce statistics, and from data appearing in the Confidential Staff Report, INV-V-089 (November 5, 1998)

Staff Report INV-BB-123 (October 4, 2004), table IV-4, and Response, November 2, 2009, ex. 2. 
 69 Commission Regulation 1979/2006, December 22, 2006.

 70 Response, November 2, 2009, pp. 14-15.

I-29

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS IN

THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

Imports of certain preserved mushrooms into the EU are subject to a tariff-rate quota system that

commenced in 1995. In 2006, the EU modified the annual quota assigning an annual quota of 63.8

million pounds to imports of preserved mushrooms from China and 11.1 million pounds from all other

countries (other than Bulgaria and Romania), including Chile, India, and Indonesia. The out-of-quota

tariff rate is 12 percent for HTS subheading 0711.5100, and 23 percent for HTS subheadings 2003.1020,

and 2003.10.30.69 Australia imposed an antidumping duty order on imports of preserved mushrooms

from China in January 2006. Mexico imposed an antidumping duty order on imports of preserved

mushrooms from Chile and China in May 2006.70
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

50776 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Notices 

deadline date. As a result, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), the 

Department determined that no 

domestic interested party intends to 

participate in the sunset review, and on 

August 21, 2009, we notified the 

International Trade Commission, in 

writing, that we intended to issue a final 

determination revoking this 

antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is barbed wire and barbless 

fencing wire from Argentina, which is 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) item number 7313.00.00. The 

HTSUS number is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written product description remains 

dispositive. 

Determination To Revoke 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no 

domestic interested party files a notice 

of intent to participate, the Department 

shall, within 90 days after the initiation 

of the review, issue a final 

determination revoking the order. 

Because the domestic interested parties 

did not file a notice of intent to 

participate in this sunset review, the 

Department finds that no domestic 

interested party is participating in this 

sunset review. Therefore, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(i) and section 

751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, we are revoking 

this antidumping duty order. The 

effective date of revocation is September 

20, 2009, the fifth anniversary of the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the most recent notice of 

continuation of this antidumping duty 

order. 

Effective Date of Revocation 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the 

Department will issue instructions to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 15 

days after publication of the notice, to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

of the merchandise subject to this order 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

on or after September 20, 2009. Entries 

of subject merchandise prior to the 

effective date of revocation will 

continue to be subject to suspension of 

liquidation and antidumping duty 

deposit requirements. The Department 

will complete any pending 

administrative reviews of this order and 

will conduct administrative reviews of 

subject merchandise entered prior to the 

effective date of revocation in response 

to appropriately filed requests for 

review. 

This five-year (sunset) review and 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 24, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–23695 Filed 9–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 45–2008] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 72—Indianapolis, 

IN; Termination of Review of 

Application for Subzone GETRAG 

Transmission Manufacturing LLC 

(Automotive Transmissions), Tipton, IN 

Notice is hereby given of termination 

of review of an application submitted by 

the Indianapolis Airport Authority, 

grantee of FTZ 72, requesting specialpurpose subzone status for the 

automotive transmission manufacturing 

plant of GETRAG Transmission 

Manufacturing LLC, located in Tipton, 

Indiana. The application was filed on 

August 8, 2008 (73 FR 48194, 8–18–08). 

The termination is a result of changed 

circumstances, and the case has been 

closed without prejudice. 

Dated: September 24, 2009. 

Pierre V. Duy, 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–23697 Filed 9–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty order listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same order. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty order: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–337–804 ....... 731–TA–776 ..... Chile ................. Certain Preserved Mushrooms (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–533–813 ....... 731–TA–777 ..... India .................. Certain Preserved Mushrooms (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–560–802 ....... 731–TA–778 ..... Indonesia .......... Certain Preserved Mushrooms (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Notices 50777 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–570–851 ....... 731–TA–779 ..... PRC .................. Certain Preserved Mushrooms (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/. All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

September 22, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–23691 Filed 9–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XR96 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council will convene a 

public meeting of the Louisiana/ 

Mississippi Habitat Protection Advisory 

Panel (AP). 

DATES: The meeting will convene at 9 

a.m. on Thursday, October 29, 2009 and 

conclude no later than 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at 

the Four Points by Sheraton, 6401 

Veterans Memorial Highway, Metairie, 

LA 70003. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 

North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, 

FL 33607. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Rester, Habitat Support Specialist, Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commission; 

telephone: (228) 875–5912. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At this 

meeting, the AP will discuss the 

Mississippi Coastal Improvements 

Program, deepwater coral in the Gulf of 

Mexico, projects associated with 

Individual Environmental Report 11 

(Inner Harbor Navigation Canal 

Navigable Floodgates in Orleans and St. 

Bernard Parishes, LA), potential 

estuarine and marine impacts from the 

expansion of the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve in Richton, MS, open water 

disposal of dredge material in 

Mississippi Sound, and Louisiana 

Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan 

projects in Planning Unit 1. 

The Louisiana/Mississippi group is 

part of a three unit Habitat Protection 

AP of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council. The principal role 

of the advisory panels is to assist the 

Council in attempting to maintain 

optimum conditions within the habitat 

and ecosystems supporting the marine 

resources of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Advisory panels serve as a first alert 

system to call to the Council’s attention 

proposed projects being developed and 

other activities which may adversely 

impact the Gulf marine fisheries and 

their supporting ecosystems. The panels 

may also provide advice to the Council 

on its policies and procedures for 

addressing environmental affairs. 

Although other issues not on the 

agenda may come before the panel for 

discussion, in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
50818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Notices 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 25, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23627 Filed 9–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–776–779 

(Second Review)] 

Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, 

China, India, and Indonesia 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on preserved mushrooms from Chile, 

China, India, and Indonesia. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on preserved 

mushrooms from Chile, China, India, 

and Indonesia would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is November 2, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

December 15, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On December 2, 1998, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

imports of preserved mushrooms from 

Chile (63 FR 66529) and on February 19, 

1999, Commerce issued antidumping 

duty orders on imports of preserved 

mushrooms from China, India, and 

Indonesia (64 FR 8308–8312). 

Commerce subsequently revoked in part 

the order on imports from Indonesia (68 

FR 39521, July 2, 2003). Following fiveyear reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective November 17, 

2004, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty orders on 

imports of preserved mushrooms from 

Chile, China, India, and Indonesia (69 

FR 67308). The Commission is now 

conducting second reviews to determine 

whether revocation of the orders would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct full reviews or 

expedited reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Chile, China, India, and 

Indonesia. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations and its full five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

found one domestic like product 

consisting of preserved mushrooms 

corresponding to the scope of 

Commerce’s investigations. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations 

and its full five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry to consist 

of all domestic producers of preserved 

mushrooms. Certain Commissioners 

defined the Domestic Industry 

differently in the original investigations. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Notices 50819 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is November 2, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is December 15, 2009. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of sections 201.8 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and 

any submissions that contain BPI must 

also conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be provided in 

response to this notice of institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2003. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds, drained 

weight, and value data in U.S. dollars, 

f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker 

group or trade/business association, 

provide the information, on an aggregate 

basis, for the firms in which your 

workers are employed/which are 

members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
50820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Notices 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2008 (report 

quantity data in pounds, drained 

weight, and value data in U.S. dollars). 

If you are a trade/business association, 

provide the information, on an aggregate 

basis, for the firms which are members 

of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in pounds, drained weight, and value 

data in U.S. dollars, landed and dutypaid at the U.S. port but not including 

antidumping duties). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2003, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in each Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 25, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23564 Filed 9–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–658] 

In the Matter of Certain Video Game 

Machines and Related ThreeDimensional Pointing Devices; Notice 

of Commission Decision Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation Based 

on a Settlement Agreement 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the presiding administrative law 

judge’s initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 44) granting a joint motion 

to terminate the above-captioned 

investigation based on a settlement 

agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on September 23, 2008, based on a 

complaint filed by Hillcrest 

Laboratories, Inc. of Rockville, 

Maryland (‘‘Hillcrest’’), alleging 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. **1337) in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
67170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / Notices 

1See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 

India, Indonesia and the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews 

of Antidumping Duty Orders, 69 FR 11384 (March 

10, 2004). 

2See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 

China, India, and Indonesia, 69 FR 63408 

(November 1, 2004). 

3See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders 

on Certain Preserved Mushrooms form Chile, the 

People’s Republic of China, India, and Indonesia, 

69 FR 67308 (November 17, 2004). 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Standard Time, Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Facsimiles will not be accepted as 

official nominations. E-mail or a courier 

service is recommended. Regular mail 

submissions must be screened by the 

Agency and may delay the receipt of the 

application up to a month. 

A total of five positions will be filled. 

The following four positions will serve 

3-year term appointments from January 

1, 2010, to December 31, 2012. Positions 

to be filled are for: 

• A member who is not currently an 

officer or employee of any government 

body living in a city with a population 

of less than 50,000 and who has 

experience and has been active in urban 

and community forestry. 

• A member representing city/town 

government. 

• One of two members representing a 

national non-profit forestry and/or 

conservation citizen organization. 

• One of two members representing 

academic institutions with an expertise 

in urban and community forestry 

activities. 

The fifth position will fill an interim 

term appointment (January 1, 2009 to 

December 31, 2010): 

• A person representing forest 

products, nursery, or related industries. 

Dated: December 9, 2009. 

Robin L. Thompson, 

Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private. 

[FR Doc. E9–30113 Filed 12–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–337–804, A–533–813, A–560–802, A–570– 

851 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 

Chile, India, Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on certain 

preserved mushrooms from Chile, India, 

Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC), pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). The Department has 

conducted expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews for these orders pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result 

of these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger or Kate Johnson, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4136 and (202) 

482–4929, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 2, 1998, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on certain preserved mushrooms from 

Chile. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from Chile, 63 FR 66529 (December 2, 

1998). On February 19, 1999, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty orders on certain preserved 

mushrooms from India, Indonesia, and 

the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from India, 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 

1999); Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from Indonesia, 64 FR 8310 (February 

19, 1999); and Notice of Amendment of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). 

In 2003–2004, the Department 

conducted the first sunset review on 

imports of certain preserved mushrooms 

from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the 

PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act, and found that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the same rates 

as found in the original investigations.1

In November 2004, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

determined, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act, that revocation of these 

antidumping duty orders would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable time.2 Also in 

November 2004, the Department 

published a notice of continuation of 

these antidumping duty orders.3

On October 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on certain preserved mushrooms 

from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the 

PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 74 FR 50776 

(October 1, 2009) (Notice of Initiation). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from the Coalition 

for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade (the 

‘‘Coalition’’), a domestic interested 

party, which is comprised of L.K. 

Bowman Company, a division of 

Hanover Foods Corporation, Monterey 

Mushrooms, Inc., The Mushroom 

Company (formerly Mushroom Canning 

Company), and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The Coalition claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer 

of a domestic like product in the United 

States. 

The Department received a complete 

substantive response to the notice of 

initiation from the domestic interested 

party within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no substantive responses from 

respondent interested parties with 

respect to any of the orders covered by 

these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing 

requested. As a result, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted expedited (120- 

day) sunset reviews of the antidumping 

duty orders on certain preserved 

mushrooms from Chile, India, 

Indonesia, and the PRC. 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered under the 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms orders are 

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as 

stems and pieces. The ‘‘preserved 

mushrooms’’ covered under the orders 

are the species Agaricus bisporus and 

Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved 

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that 

have been prepared or preserved by 

cleaning, blanching, and sometimes 

slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are 

then packed and heated in containers, 

including but not limited to cans or 

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, 

including but not limited to water, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / Notices 67171 

brine, butter or butter sauce. Included 

within the scope of these orders are 

‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are 

presalted and packed in a heavy salt 

solution to provisionally preserve them 

for further processing. Also included 

within the scope of these orders, as of 

June 19, 2000, are marinated, acidified, 

or pickled mushrooms containing less 

than 0.5 percent acetic acid. 

Excluded from the scope of these 

orders are the following: (1) all other 

species of mushroom, including straw 

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled 

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or 

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’; (3) dried 

mushrooms; and (4) frozen mushrooms. 

The merchandise subject to these orders 

was previously classifiable under 

subheadings 2003.10.0027, 

2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 

2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 

2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of these 

orders is dispositive. As of January 1, 

2002, the HTSUS subheadings are as 

follows: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 

2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 

2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, 

0711.51.0000. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the 

People’s Republic of China’’ from John 

M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

(Decision Memo), which is hereby 

adopted by, and issued concurrently 

with, this notice. The issues discussed 

in the Decision Memo include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail if the orders 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in these reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the 

main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on certain 

preserved mushrooms from Chile, India, 

Indonesia, and the PRC would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted– 

average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average Margin 

(percent) 

Chile.

Nature’s Farm Products (Chile) S.A. ......................................................................................................................... 148.51 

All–Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................... 148.51 

India.

Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. .............................................................................................................................................. 6.28 

KICM (Madras) Ltd.* .................................................................................................................................................. 14.91 

Alpine Biotech Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................................... 243.87 

Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. ......................................................................................................................................... 243.87 

All–Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................... 11.30 

Indonesia.

PT Dieng Djaya/PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa ........................................................................................................ 7.94 

PT Zeta Agro Corporation ......................................................................................................................................... *revoked 

All–Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................... 11.26 

PRC.

China Processed Food I&E Co./Xiamen Jiahua I&E Trading Company, Ltd. .......................................................... 121.47 

Tak Fat Trading Co. .................................................................................................................................................. 162.47 

Shenzhen Cofry Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................. 151.15 

Gerber (Yunnan) Food Co. ........................................................................................................................................ 142.11 

Jiangsu Cereals,Oils & Foodstuffs Group Import & Export Corporation .................................................................. 142.11 

Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs I&E Corp. ............................................................................................ 142.11 

Putian Cannery Fujian Province ................................................................................................................................ 142.11 

Xiamen Gulong I&E Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................... 142.11 

General Canned Foods Factory of Zhangzhou ......................................................................................................... 142.11 

Zhejiang Cereals,Oils & Foodstuffs I&E Corp. .......................................................................................................... 142.11 

Shanghai Foodstuffs I&E Corp. ................................................................................................................................. 142.11 

Canned Goods Co. of Raoping ................................................................................................................................. 142.11 

PRC–wide Rate ......................................................................................................................................................... 198.63 

*The Department conducted a changed circumstances review and found that KICM (Madras) Limited was the successor–in-interest to Hindustan Lever Limited (formerly known as Ponds (India) Ltd.). See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 6884 (February 11, 2003); Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 10371 (March 7, 2002), unchanged in Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 46172 (July 12, 2002). 

*Effective February 1, 2002, the antidumping duty order with respect to PT Zeta Agro Corporation was revoked. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 

39521 (July 2, 2003). 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
67172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / Notices 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 14, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–30156 Filed 12–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 57–2009] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 202—Los Angeles, 

CA, Area Application for 

Reorganization/Expansion 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 

(the Board) by the Board of Harbor 

Commissioners of the City of Los 

Angeles, grantee of FTZ 202, requesting 

authority to reorganize and expand its 

zone in the Los Angeles area within and 

adjacent to the Los Angeles-Long Beach 

Customs and Border Protection port of 

entry. The application was submitted 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended 

(19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations 

of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was 

formally filed on December 11, 2009. 

FTZ 202 was approved on July 14, 

1994 (Board Order 693, 59 FR 37464, 7/ 

22/94), expanded on August 26, 1996 

(Board Order 842, 61 FR 46763, 9/5/96) 

and on July 9, 1999 (Board Order 1043, 

64 FR 38887, 7/20/99), and expanded/ 

reorganized on April 30, 2004 (Board 

Order 1331, 69 FR 26065, 5/11/04) and 

on April 24, 2009 (Board Order 1616, 74 

FR 21623, 5/8/09). 

The zone project currently consists of 

16 permanent and temporary sites 

located at port facilities, industrial parks 

and warehouse facilities in Los Angeles, 

San Bernardino, Kern and Riverside 

Counties as described below: 

• Site 1 (2,783 acres total)—consists 

of the Port of Los Angeles Harbor 

Complex in San Pedro; 

• Site 2 (3 acres total) located: At 1 

World Way within the Los Angeles 

International Airport (Parcel 1—1 acre); 

at 5330 W. 102nd Street, Los Angeles 

(Parcel 2—1.5 acres); and, at 1111 

Watson Center Road, Unit 2–A, B–C, 

Carson (Parcel 3—22,705 sq. ft.); 

• Site 3 (564 acres)—within the 

International Trade & Technology 

Center, Santa Fe Highway at 7th 

Standard Road, Kern County; 

• Site 4 (353.6 acres)—within the 

438-acre Carson Dominguez Technology 

Center south of the Artesia Freeway, 

between the Harbor Freeway and I–710 

in the City of Carson and the Rancho 

Dominguez area of Los Angeles County; 

• Site 5 (8.51 acres total, sunset 4/30/ 

2014)—warehouse facilities of 3Plus 

Logistics located at 20250 South 

Alameda Street in Rancho Dominguez 

(6.13 acres) and at 2730 El Presidio 

Street in Carson (2.38 acres); 

• Site 6 (23 acres)—located at 20002 

E. Business Parkway, Walnut; 

• Site 7 (93 acres)—within the 140- 

acre Pacific Gateway Center, at the 

southwest corner of the San Diego 

Freeway Interchange, Los Angeles; 

• Site 9 (22.87 acres total): Parcel A 

(5.61 acres)—19700 Van Ness Avenue, 

Torrance; and, Parcel C (7.26 acres)— 

1451 Knox Street, Torrance; 

• Site 10 (325 acres)—Watson 

Industrial Center South, 22010 South 

Wilmington Avenue, Carson; 

• Site 11 (153.79 acres)—Watson 

Corporate Center located at 22010 South 

Wilmington Avenue and at 2417 East 

Carson Street in Carson; 

• Site 12 (8 acres, expires 7/31/ 

2011)—Schafer Brothers Distribution 

Center, Inc., 1981 East 213th Street, 

Carson; 

• Site 14 (33 acres, expires 7/31/ 

2011)—Nippon Express USA, Inc., 

located adjacent to Site 1, at 300 

Westmont Street, San Pedro; 

• Site 15 (4 acres)—located at 1020 

McFarland Avenue, Wilmington; 

• Site 20 (21 acres, expires 7/31/ 

2011)—Kwikset Corporation facilities 

located within the Park Mira Loma 

West, southeast side of the Intersection 

of Highway 60 (the Pomona Freeway) 

and Interstate 15 (the Ontario Freeway), 

Mira Loma; 

• Site 23 (177 acres, sunset 3/31/ 

2013)—within the 1,450-acre Tejon 

Industrial Complex located directly off 

Interstate 5 at the Highway 99 junction, 

Lebec; and, 

• Temporary Site 2 (2.4 acres, expires 

6/30/2010)—a warehouse located at 

2200 and 2250 Technology Place, Long 

Beach. 

There is an application pending for a 

proposed new zone project in the 

Bakersfield, California, area (Doc. 18– 

2009). That application is requesting a 

transfer of FTZ 202—Site 23 (Tejon 

Industrial Complex) to the Bakersfield 

zone project as proposed Site 2. 

The applicant is now requesting 

authority for a reorganization and 

expansion of the zone which would 

result in an overall net increase of zone 

sites and space. As described below, the 

proposal includes a request for new 

authority for expired sites/parcels, to 

delete an existing site, for permanent 

status for temporary sites, and to add a 

new site. 

• Expand Site 1 by requesting new 

authority for the Howard Hartry parcel 

(0.39 acres, 10,833 sq. ft.) (which 

expired on 7/1/09) (new total acreage— 

2,783 acres); 

• Delete Site 6 in its entirety due to 

changed circumstances; 

• Expand Site 9 by requesting new 

authority for Parcel B (7 acres) (which 

expired on 7/1/09) (new total acreage— 

29.87 acres); 

• Modify Site 12 by requesting 

permanent status; 

• Modify and expand Site 14 by 

requesting permanent status for the 

current 33 acres and requesting new 

authority for 55 acres (which expired on 

7/1/09) (new total acreage—88 acres); 

• Requesting new authority for 4.16 

acres at Site 16 (which had previously 

consisted of 153.20 acres that expired 

on 7/1/09); 

• Requesting new authority for 18.5 

acres at Site 19 (which had previously 

consisted of 83.16 acres that expired on 

7/1/09); 

• Modify Site 20 by requesting 

permanent status for the current 21 

acres and to expand the site to include 

an additional 120.79 acres (113.37 acres 

that expired on 7/1/09 and a new 7.42- 

acre parcel) (new total acreage—141.79 

acres); 

• Requesting new authority for 84 

acres at Site 22 (which had previously 

consisted of 227 acres that expired on 7/ 

1/09); and, 

• Add Proposed Site 24 (5 acres)— 

RPM Transport warehouse facility 

located at 2200 and 2250 Technology 

Place, Long Beach (this site will include 

Temporary Site 2 (2.4 acres) on a 

permanent basis and add an additional 

2.6 acres). 

The sites will provide warehousing 

and distribution services to area 

businesses. No specific manufacturing 

authority is being requested at this time. 

Such requests would be made to the 

Board on a case-by-case basis. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Christopher Kemp of the 

FTZ Staff is designated examiner to 

evaluate and analyze the facts and 

information presented in the application 

and case record and report findings and 

recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is February 16, 2010. 

Rebuttal comments in response to 

material submitted during the foregoing 

period may be submitted during the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
3756 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and Record of Decision. Because of the 

significance of paleontological, 

botanical, hydrological, and cultural 

resources present within the CTA study 

area and the need for additional public 

input, the BLM is preparing a 

Supplemental EIS. The BLM proposes to 

establish a final boundary for the CTA. 

This decision was not made in the 2004 

Record of Decision. The CTA study area 

is located in the northern portion of the 

Las Vegas Valley. A defined final 

boundary is needed to ensure protection 

of sensitive resources, including fossils, 

cultural resources, the natural 

functioning of the wash, and endemic 

plants on public lands available for 

disposal within the CTA study area, in 

accordance with applicable laws. 

Six alternatives for boundaries are 

analyzed, ranging from approximately 

13,000 acres to less than 1,500 acres. 

Alternative A, at 12,953 acres, includes 

the fossil formation, sensitive cultural 

and plant resources, active wash, the 

adjacent alluvial fan, and a one mile 

resource protection zone around 

northern and eastern boundaries of the 

Las Vegas Paiute reservation. 

Alternative B, at 11,008 acres, includes 

the fossil formation, sensitive cultural 

and plant resources, active wash, and 

the adjacent alluvial fan. Alternative B 

is the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative C, at 6,362 acres, includes 

the fossil formation, sensitive cultural 

and plant resources, active wash, and a 

portion of the adjacent alluvial fan. 

Alternative D, at 5,301 acres, includes 

most of the fossil formation, the 

sensitive cultural and rare plant 

resources, and the active wash. 

Alternative E, at 3,314 acres, includes 

some of the fossil formation, the 

sensitive cultural and rare plant 

resources, and part of the active wash. 

The No Action alternative, at 1,448 

acres, includes the Tule Spring cultural 

site and the 300-acre Eglington Preserve. 

Scoping of the project occurred from 

June 6 to August 20, 2007, and was 

extended to September 4, 2007. A total 

of 1,183 individuals submitted 

comments. Comments received 

pertained to a variety of broad 

categories, including alternatives, 

boundaries, management, and physical/ 

natural resources. Additional 

stakeholder involvement has been 

achieved through the BLM’s newsletters 

that provided updates on the 

Supplemental EIS process. 

The Draft Supplemental EIS addresses 

the following issues identified during 

scoping: NEPA process (consultation/ 

coordination, proposal description, 

alternatives, and connected actions/ 

cumulative impacts); social resources 

(cultural resources, visual resources, 

noise, land use, recreation, 

transportation, and socioeconomic 

resources); and physical/natural 

resources (botanical resources, water 

resources, paleontological resources, 

and geologic/soil resources). 

Maps of the CTA study area and the 

alternatives being analyzed in the 

Supplemental EIS are available at the 

BLM Las Vegas Field Office. Please note 

that public comments and information 

submitted including names, street 

addresses, and e-mail addresses of 

persons who submit comments will be 

available for public review and 

disclosure at the above address during 

regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10. 

Angie Lara, 

Associate District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–976 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

Procedures Manual 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: This notice reopens the 

period for comments on the Draft NEPA 

Procedures Manual published in the 

Federal Register on December 4, 2009 

(74 FR 63765, 74 FR 63787). 

DATES: The comment period for the 

Draft NEPA Procedures Manual is being 

reopened from January 19, 2010, to 

March 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit your 

comments by only one of the following 

means: (1) By mail to: Brad Mehaffy, 

National Indian Gaming Commission, 

1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, 

Washington, DC 20005; (2) by hand 

delivery to: National Indian Gaming 

Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 

9100, Washington, DC 20005; (3) by 

facsimile to: (202) 632–7066; (4) by email to: nepa_procedures@nigc.gov; or 

(5) online at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bradley Mehaffy, NEPA Compliance 

Officer at the National Indian Gaming 

Commission: 202–632–7003 or by 

facsimile at 303–632–7066 (not toll-free 

numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: In response 

to several requests, the Acting Chairman 

of the National Indian Gaming 

Commission has decided to reopen the 

comment period on the Draft NEPA 

Procedures Manual for an additional 45 

days. 

Dated: January 15, 2010. 

George T. Skibine, 

Acting Chairman, National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1148 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL 

TRADE COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–776–779 

(Second Review)] 

Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 

China, India, and Indonesia 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of expedited fiveyear reviews concerning the 

antidumping duty orders on preserved 

mushrooms from Chile, China, India, 

and Indonesia. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on preserved mushrooms 

from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of these reviews and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 4, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Notices 3757 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On January 4, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 50818, October 1, 2009) for each 

review was adequate and that the 

respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

February 17, 2010, and made available 

to persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for these 

reviews. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution, and any party other 

than an interested party to the reviews, 

may file written comments with the 

Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

February 23, 2010 and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

reviews nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

February 23, 2010. If comments contain 

business proprietary information (BPI), 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 Fed. Reg. 68168, 

68173 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 15, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1136 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1121–0311] 

Bureau of Justice Statistics; Agency 

Information Collection Activities: 

Proposed Collection; Comments 

Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Extension of 

Existing Collection With Change; 

National Inmate Survey. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until March 23, 2010. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Paige M. Harrison, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531 

(phone: 202–514–0809). 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies 

estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information, including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of this information 

collection: 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of existing collection with 

change. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

National Inmate Survey. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Paper and Pencil 

questionnaires—PAPI M12, PAPI M<12, 

PAPI F12, PAPI F<12, SP PAPI M12, SP 

PAPI M<12, SP PAPI F12, SP PAPI 

F<12; Facility Characteristics survey— 

NIS FS. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Office of Justice Programs, Department 

of Justice is the sponsor for the 

collection. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government. Other: Federal 

Government, Business or other forprofit, Not-for-profit institutions. The 

work under this clearance will be used 

to produce estimates for the incidence 

and prevalence of sexual assault within 

correctional facilities as required under 

the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 

(Pub. L. 108–79). 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 8111 

Taylor’s City, Address Restricted, Price, 

09001048, LISTED, 11/30/09 (Nine Mile 

Canyon, Utah) 

VIRGINIA 

Charlotte County 

Four Locust Farm, U.S. Rt. 15, Keysville 

vicinity, 09001053, LISTED, 12/03/09 

Gloucester County 

Walker, T.C., House, 1 Main St., Gloucester, 

09001050, LISTED, 12/04/09 

Rockbridge County 

Willson House, 367 VA 673, Lexington 

vicinity, 09001049, LISTED, 12/03/09 

[FR Doc. 2010–3553 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–51–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[AK–963–1410–ET; AA–3060] 

Notice of Proposed Withdrawal 

Extension and Opportunity for Public 

Meeting; Alaska 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 

has filed an application with the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) that 

proposes to extend the duration of 

Public Land Order (PLO) No. 6888 for 

an additional 20-year period. This order 

withdrew approximately 320 acres of 

National Forest System land from 

surface entry and mining, but not from 

mineral leasing laws, to protect the 

recreational values of the Juneau Falls 

Recreation Area. This notice gives an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed action and to request a public 

meeting. 

DATES: Comments meeting requests for a 

public meeting must be received by May 

24, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and meeting 

requests should be sent to the Alaska 

State Director, BLM Alaska State Office, 

222 West 7th Avenue, No. 13, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513–7504. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Lloyd, BLM Alaska State Office, 

907–271–4682 or at the address listed 

above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

withdrawal created by PLO No. 6888 (56 

FR 50661 (1991)) will expire on October 

7, 2011, unless extended. The USDA 

Forest Service has filed an application 

to extend the withdrawal for an 

additional 20-year period to protect the 

recreational values of the Juneau Falls 

Recreation Area. 

This withdrawal comprises 

approximately 320 acres of National 

Forest System land located in the 

Chugach National Forest, within T. 5 N., 

R. 4 W., Seward Meridian, as described 

in PLO No. 6888. 

A complete description, along with all 

other records pertaining to the extension 

application, can be examined in the 

BLM Alaska State Office at the address 

listed above. 

As extended, the withdrawal would 

not alter the applicability of those 

public land laws governing the use of 

land under lease, license, or permit or 

governing the disposal of the mineral or 

vegetative resources other than under 

the mining laws. 

The use of a right-of-way or 

interagency or cooperative agreement 

would not adequately protect the 

recreational values of the Juneau Falls 

Recreation Area. 

There are no suitable alternative sites 

available that could be substituted for 

the above described National Forest 

system land, since the Juneau Falls 

Recreation Area is unique. 

No water rights would be needed to 

fulfill the purpose of the requested 

withdrawal extension. 

For a period of 90 days from the date 

of publication of this notice, all persons 

who wish to submit comments, 

suggestions, or objections in connection 

with the proposed withdrawal extension 

may present their views in writing to 

the BLM Alaska State Director at the 

address listed above. Before including 

your address, phone number, e-mail 

address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. Individual respondents may 

request confidentiality. If you wish to 

withhold your name or address from 

public review or from disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act, you 

must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. Such 

requests will be honored to the extent 

allowed by law. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

Notice is hereby given that an 

opportunity for a public meeting is 

afforded in connection with the 

proposed withdrawal extension. All 

interested parties who desire a public 

meeting for the purpose of being heard 

on the proposed withdrawal must 

submit a written request to the BLM 

Alaska State Director to the address 

listed above within 90 days from the 

date of publication of this notice. Upon 

determination by the authorized officer 

that a public meeting will be held, a 

notice of the time and place will be 

published in the Federal Register and at 

least one local newspaper no less than 

30 days before the scheduled date of the 

meeting. 

The withdrawal extension proposal 

will be processed in accordance with 

the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 

2310.4 and subject to Section 810 of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 3120. 

Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3–1(b). 

Robert L. Lloyd, 

Acting Deputy State Director, Division of 

Alaska Lands. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3419 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–776–779 

(Second Review)] 

Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, 

China, India, and Indonesia 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

reviews. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 17, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 4, 2010, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of the expedited five-year reviews and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

8112 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B) 

(75 FR 3756, January 22, 2010). Due to 

the closure of the Government during 

the recent snowstorms, the Commission 

is revising its schedule. The 

Commission’s new schedule for the 

reviews is as follows: the staff report 

will be placed in the nonpublic record 

on March 9, 2010; and the deadline for 

filing comments is March 15, 2010. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 17, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3528 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–130 (Third 

Review)] 

Chloropicrin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

review. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 17, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 15, 2009, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of this review (74 FR 55065, October 26, 

2009). 

Subsequently, counsel for three 

domestic interested parties filed a 

request to appear at the hearing or, in 

the alternative, for leave to submit 

written testimony in lieu of an oral 

presentation. In connection with the 

offer of written testimony, counsel 

indicated a willingness to respond to 

written questions of the Commissioners 

by a date to be set by the Commission. 

No other party filed a request to appear 

at the hearing. Consequently, the public 

hearing in connection with the review, 

scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on 

February 18, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building is cancelled. 

The Commission has determined to 

accept the offer to submit written 

testimony in lieu of an oral public 

hearing presentation. Written testimony 

shall be filed with the Commission by 

the close of business on Thursday, 

February 18, 2010. The parties are 

expected to respond to the 

Commission’s written questions in their 

post-hearing briefs, which are due to be 

filed on March 1, 2010. 

For further information concerning 

this investigation see the Commission’s 

notice cited above and the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 17, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3530 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–703] 

In the Matter of Certain Mobile 

Telephones and Wireless 

Communication Devices Featuring 

Digital Cameras, and Components 

Thereof; Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

January 14, 2010, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Eastman 

Kodak Company of Rochester, New 

York. A letter supplementing the 

complaint was filed on February 4, 

2010. The complaint alleges violations 

of section 337 based upon the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain mobile telephones and wireless 

communication devices featuring digital 

cameras, and components thereof by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218. The 

complaint further alleges that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, is available for inspection 

during official business hours (8:45 a.m. 

to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 

112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 

202–205–2000. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons 

with mobility impairments who will 

need special assistance in gaining access 

to the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server at http:// 

www.usitc.gov. The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vu 

Q. Bui, Esq., Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, telephone 202–205–2582. 

Authority: The authority for institution of 

this investigation is contained in section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2009). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

February 16, 2010, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain mobile 

telephones or wireless communication 

devices featuring digital cameras, or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


B-1

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-776-779 

(Second Review)

On January 4, 2010, the Commission determined that it should proceed to expedited reviews in

the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received a single response to the notice of institution filed by the Coalition for

Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade and its individual members L.K. Bowman Co., Monterey Mushrooms

Inc., the Mushroom Co., and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. (collectively “the Coalition”). The Commission

found the individual response of each of these domestic producers of preserved mushrooms, which

contained company-specific data, to be adequate. Because the four producers that are members of the

Coalition collectively account for a substantial share of domestic production of preserved mushrooms, the

Commission further determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received no response from any respondent interested party, and therefore

determined that the respondent interested party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate

for each of the orders subject to review. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group

response or any other circumstances warranting full reviews, the Commission determined to conduct

expedited reviews.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov).