Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42487

that the proposal is in the public

interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

orders:

The application to expand Subzone

183A is approved, subject to the Act and

the Board’s regulations, including

Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of

July 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20736 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–25–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–813]

Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial termination of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by

respondents Siam Food Products Public

Company Ltd. (SFP), The Thai

Pineapple Public Company, Ltd.

(TIPCO), and Thai Pineapple Canning

Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on canned

pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand.

The review covers three manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise.

The period of review (POR) is January

11, 1995, through June 30, 1996.

We have preliminarily found that

sales of subject merchandise have been

made below normal value (NV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct U.S.

Customs to assess antidumping duties

equal to the difference between the

export price (EP) or constructed export

price (CEP) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit case briefs in this

proceeding should provide a summary

of the arguments not to exceed five

pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gabriel Adler, at (202) 482–1442, or Kris

Campbell, at (202) 482–3813; Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, Washington, DC. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations refer to the

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 353,

as they existed on April 1, 1997.

Background

On July 18, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on canned

pineapple fruit from Thailand. See 60

FR 36775. On July 8, 1996, the

Department published a notice

providing an opportunity to request an

administrative review of this

antidumping duty order for the period

January 11, 1995, through June 30, 1996.

See 61 FR 35712. On July 31, 1996, we

received timely requests for review from

the following respondents: SFP; TIPCO;

TPC; Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole

Packaged Foods Company, and Dole

Thailand, Ltd. (collectively referred to

hereafter as ‘‘Dole’’); Thai Bonanza

International Corp., Ltd. (Thai Bonanza);

and Vita Food Factory (Vita Food). On

September 5, 1996, we issued an

antidumping questionnaire to the six

companies that had requested a review.

Thai Bonanza and Vita Food

withdrew their requests for review on

September 9, 1996, and Dole withdrew

its request for review on November 7,

1996. Because there were no other

requests for review of these companies

from any other interested parties, and

because the letters withdrawing the

requests for review were timely filed,

we are terminating the review with

respect to these companies in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

On December 12, 1996, Maui

Pineapple, Ltd. (the petitioner) alleged

that SFP and TPC had each sold the

foreign like product at prices below

their respective cost of production

(COP). On January 13, 1997, we initiated

a sales-below-cost investigation with

respect to these two companies. We also

initiated a COP investigation of sales by

TIPCO because we disregarded sales

below the COP in the last completed

segment of the proceeding for this

company. See ‘‘Cost of Production

Analysis’’ below.

On January 29, 1997, we published a

notice of postponement of the

preliminary results. See 62 FR 4250.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

canned pineapple fruit. For purposes of

this review, CPF is defined as pineapple

processed and/or prepared into various

product forms, including rings, pieces,

chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple,

that is packed and cooked in metal cans

with either pineapple juice or sugar

syrup added. CPF is currently

classifiable under subheadings

2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). HTSUS

2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a

sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090

covers CPF packed without added sugar

(i.e., juice-packed). Although these

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope is

dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified sales and cost

information provided by all three

respondents. We used standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities and examination of relevant

sales and financial records. Our

verification results are outlined in the

verification reports placed in the case

file.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For the price to the United States, we

used EP or CEP as defined in sections

772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, as

appropriate.

TPC

In accordance with sections 772 (a)

and (c) of the Act, we calculated an EP

for sales where the merchandise was

sold directly by TPC to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation, and CEP was

not otherwise warranted based on the

facts of record. In accordance with

sections 772 (b), (c) and (d) of the Act,

we calculated a CEP for sales that took

place after importation into the United

States and for which U.S. sales

activities, including the setting of

prices, took place in the United States

through affiliated U.S. resellers. EP and

CEP were based on the packed FOB,

CIF, or delivered price to unaffiliated
42488 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

purchasers in, or for exportation to, the

United States. As appropriate, we made

deductions for discounts and rebates,

including early payment discounts,

promotional allowances, freight

allowances, and billback discounts and

rebates. We also made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included inland freight from plant to

port of exportation, foreign brokerage

and handling, other miscellaneous

foreign port charges, international

freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs

brokerage, U.S. customs duty, harbor

maintenance fees, merchandise

processing fee, and U.S. inland freight

expenses (freight from port to

warehouse and freight from warehouse

to the customer).

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act, we deducted from CEP

selling expenses associated with

economic activities occurring in the

United States, including commissions,

direct selling expenses (credit costs,

introduction allowances, and warranty

expenses), and indirect selling expenses

(incurred by TPC in Thailand and by

TPC’s affiliated reseller in the United

States). We increased the reported

indirect selling expenses for sales

through TPC’s affiliated U.S. reseller to

account for unreported expenses found

at verification. We also deducted from

CEP an amount for profit in accordance

with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

No other adjustments to EP or CEP

were claimed or allowed.

We relied on the date of contract as

the date of sale for all of TPC’s EP sales.

The preamble to the Department’s postURAA regulations states that while the

Department will normally rely on the

date of invoice as the date of sale (i.e.,

the date on which the material terms of

sale are established), the Department

will use another date if the material

terms of sale are finally established on

that alternative date. See 62 FR 27296,

27349 (May 19, 1997). While these

regulations do not govern the instant

review, they do describe the

Department’s current practice with

respect to date of sale. See id. at 27378.

The terms of all of TPC’s EP sales during

the POR were set by contract, and there

were virtually no changes to the

contracted terms of these sales. (Out of

hundreds of sales, there was only a

single instance of changes to the terms

of the contracts.) Therefore, for these

sales, we have found that the date of

contract provides a more appropriate

basis for date of sale than the date of

invoice. As for TPC’s CEP sales, these

are made from inventory within a few

days of receipt of purchase order.

Although at verification we found that

the terms of CEP sales almost never

change from those shown on the

purchase order, we also found that

purchase orders were received in a

variety of different formats, and that the

dates of purchase order were not

systematically recorded. Therefore, for

TPC’s CEP sales we have based the date

of sale on the date of the invoice issued

by TPC’s affiliated resellers.

TIPCO

In accordance with sections 772 (a)

and (c) of the Act, we calculated an EP

for all of TIPCO’s sales, since the

merchandise was sold either directly by

TIPCO or indirectly through its U.S.

affiliate, TIPCO Marketing Co. (TMC), to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation, and

CEP was not otherwise warranted based

on the facts of record. Sales through

TMC involved direct shipment from

TIPCO to the unaffiliated customer,

without any merchandise entering

TMC’s physical inventory; further,

TMC’s involvement in the sales process

for indirect sales was limited to that of

a processor of sales documentation and

did not extend in any way to negotiation

of sales terms or other selling functions.

We calculated EP based on the packed

FOB or CIF price to unaffiliated

purchasers for exportation to the United

States. We made deductions from EP for

rebates. We also made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included foreign movement expenses

(brokerage and handling, port charges,

liner expenses, stuffing expenses, and

inland freight), international freight,

U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage

and handling.

No other adjustments to EP were

claimed or allowed.

For all sales by TIPCO, the material

terms of sale were initially set on the

date of purchase order but were

frequently modified up to the date of

invoice. Therefore, in accordance with

the date of sale methodology described

above, we have relied on the date of

invoice as the date of sale.

The merchandise involved in certain

U.S. sales reported by TIPCO was

produced by unaffiliated suppliers. We

did not include in our analysis sales of

merchandise produced by one such

supplier because we determined that

this supplier had knowledge that the

merchandise was destined for export to

the United States. See Memorandum

from Case Analysts to Office Director:

Verification of Sales by the Thai

Pineapple Public Co., Ltd., July 30,

1997, at 5–6. We included TIPCO’s

other U.S. sales involving merchandise

produced by unaffiliated suppliers in

our analysis because we determined that

these suppliers did not have knowledge

of exportation to the United States. Id.

We compared these U.S. sales to the

constructed value (CV) of identical

merchandise produced by TIPCO, as

facts available, because: (1) There were

no appropriate third-country matches

involving merchandise produced by the

same suppliers and (2) TIPCO did not

provide information regarding these

suppliers’ production costs.

SFP

In accordance with sections 772 (a)

and (c) of the Act, we calculated an EP

for all of SFP’s sales, since the

merchandise was sold directly by SFP to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation, and

a CEP was not otherwise warranted

based on the facts of record. We made

deductions from EP for discounts. We

also made deductions for foreign inland

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

No other adjustments to EP were

claimed or allowed.

For all sales by SFP, the material

terms of sale were initially set on the

date of purchase order but were

frequently modified up to the date of

invoice. Therefore, in accordance with

the date of sale methodology described

above, we have relied on the date of

invoice as the date of sale.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of foreign like product each

respondent sold in the exporting

country did not permit a proper

comparison with the sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of

the Act, because the quantity of each

company’s sales in its home market was

less than five percent of the quantity of

its sales to the U.S. market. In

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act, and consistent with our

practice, we therefore based NV on the

prices at which the foreign like products

were first sold for consumption in each

respondent’s largest third-country

market, i.e., the United Kingdom for

SFP, and Germany for TIPCO and TPC.

See Memoranda from the team to

Richard Moreland, dated February 24,

1997, regarding the selection of thirdcountry market for each respondent.

TPC

Third-country market prices were

based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in Germany. We made
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42489

adjustments for differences in packing

in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A)

of the Act. We also made adjustments

for movement expenses consistent with

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act; these

included inland freight from plant to

port of exportation, foreign brokerage

and handling, other miscellaneous

foreign port charges, and international

freight. In addition, we made

adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act, as well as for differences in

circumstances of sale (COS) in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. For

comparison to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred for third-country

market sales (credit expenses, letter of

credit charges, and bank charges) and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(credit expenses, letter of credit charges,

bank charges, and warranties). For

comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on third-country

market sales and adding U.S. direct

selling expenses other than those

deducted from the starting price in

calculating CEP pursuant to section

772(d) of the Act (i.e., we added

expenses for letters of credit and bank

charges incurred by TPC in Thailand).

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for indirect selling expenses

incurred on third-country sales to offset

commissions in EP and CEP

calculations; specifically, we deducted

from normal value the lesser of (1) the

amount of commission paid on a U.S.

sale for a particular product, or (2) the

amount of indirect selling expenses

incurred on the third-country market

sales for a particular product.

No other adjustments to NV were

claimed (except for a CEP offset; see

‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below), or

allowed.

We relied on the date of contract as

the date of sale for all of TPC’s third

country sales. As discussed in the

‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export

Price’’ section above, while the

Department will normally rely on the

date of invoice as the date of sale, the

Department will use another date if the

material terms of sale are finally

established on that alternative date. The

terms of all of TPC’s third-country sales

during the POR were set by contract,

and there were virtually no changes to

the contracted terms of these sales. (Out

of hundreds of sales, there were only

three instances of changes to the terms

of the contracts.) Therefore, for these

sales, we have found that the date of

contract provides a more appropriate

basis for date of sale than the date of

invoice.

TIPCO

Third-country market prices were

based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in Germany. We made

adjustments for differences in packing

in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A)

of the Act. We also made adjustments

for movement expenses consistent with

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act; these

included foreign movement expenses

(brokerage and handling, port charges,

liner expenses, stuffing expenses, and

inland freight), and international freight.

In addition, we made adjustments for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for

differences in COS in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and

19 CFR 353.56. We made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred for third-country

market sales (credit expenses and bank

charges) and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses (credit expenses, bank charges,

and warranties). We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for

indirect selling expenses incurred on

third-country sales to offset U.S.

commissions in EP calculations;

specifically, we deducted from normal

value the lesser of (1) the amount of

commission paid on a U.S. sale for a

particular product, or (2) the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on

the third-country market sales for a

particular product.

No other adjustments to NV were

claimed or allowed.

For all sales by TIPCO, the material

terms of sale were initially set on the

date of purchase order but were

frequently modified up to the date of

invoice. Therefore, in accordance with

the date of sale methodology described

above, we have relied on the date of

invoice as the date of sale.

SFP

Third-country market prices were

based on the packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United Kingdom. We

made adjustments for differences in

packing in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made

adjustments for foreign movement

expenses consistent with section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we

made adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act, as well as for differences in

COS in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.56. We made COS adjustments by

deducting direct selling expenses

incurred for third-country market sales

(credit expenses and bank charges) and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(credit expenses, bank charges, and

warranties). We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for indirect selling

expenses incurred on third-country

sales to offset U.S. commissions on EP

sales; specifically, we deducted from

normal value the lesser of (1) the

amount of commission paid on a U.S.

sale for a particular product, or (2) the

amount of indirect selling expenses

incurred on the third-country market

sales for a particular product.

No other adjustments to NV were

claimed or allowed.

For all sales by SFP, the material

terms of sale were initially set on the

date of purchase order but were

frequently modified up to the date of

invoice. Therefore, in accordance with

the date of sale methodology described

above, we have relied on the date of

invoice as the date of sale.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA at 829–831, to

the extent practicable, the Department

will calculate NV based on sales at the

same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

When the Department is unable to find

sales of the foreign like product in the

comparison market at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale, the Department

may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a

different level of trade in the

comparison market.

When CEP sales have been made in

the United States, as is the situation in

TPC’s case, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the

Act establishes that a CEP ‘‘offset’’ may

be made provided that two conditions

exist: (1) NV is established at a level of

trade that is at a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP; and (2) the data available do not

permit a determination that there is a

pattern of consistent price differences

between sales at different levels of trade

in the comparison market.

Our practice is to determine that sales

are made at different levels of trade if

they are made at different marketing

stages (or their equivalent). Substantial

differences in selling activities are a

necessary, but not sufficient, condition

for determining that there is a difference

in the stage of marketing. See Notice of

Final Results: Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review of Antifriction
42490 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

Bearings from France et al., 62 FR 2081,

2105 (January 15, 1997). See also 19

CFR 351.412 of the Department’s

revised regulations (62 FR 27296,

27414–27415 (May 19, 1997)) for a

concise description of this practice.

In implementing these principles in

this review, we obtained information

from each respondent about the

marketing stage involved in the reported

U.S. and third-country market sales and

a description of the selling activities

performed by the respondents for each

channel of distribution. Pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the

SAA at 827, in identifying levels of

trade for EP and third-country market

sales we considered the selling

functions reflected in the starting price

before any adjustments. For CEP sales,

we considered only the selling activities

reflected in the price after the deduction

of expenses and profit under section

772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if

claimed levels of trade are the same, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be similar. Conversely, if a party

claims that levels of trade are different

for different groups of sales, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be dissimilar.

TPC

During the POR, TPC made sales

through different channels of

distribution in the U.S. and German

markets. In the United States, TPC made

both direct sales to unaffiliated

customers and sales through affiliated

U.S. resellers Mitsubishi International

Corporation (MIC) and MC Foods, Inc.

(MFI). In Germany, TPC made both

direct sales and indirect sales through

an affiliated reseller in the Netherlands,

Princes Foods B.V. (Princes).

We compared the selling activities

performed by TPC for EP sales to the

activities performed by TPC and MIC/

MFI for CEP sales (after excluding those

selling activities related to the expenses

deducted under section 772(d) of the

Act), and found them to be both limited

in scope and essentially identical. The

functions that TPC performed on both

direct and indirect sales were limited to

negotiation of prices, processing of

purchase orders, and invoicing.

Therefore, we have preliminarily found

that there is a single level of trade in the

United States for both EP and CEP sales.

Similarly, we compared the selling

functions and activities performed by

TPC for direct sales to Germany to the

functions and activities performed by

TPC and Princes for indirect sales to

Germany. These activities were also

limited to negotiating prices with

German customers, invoicing those

customers, and making limited sales

calls. In essence, the only difference in

selling activity between TPC’s direct

and indirect sales to Germany is that

indirect sales involved the issuance of

an additional invoice among affiliated

parties, and this difference does not

establish a significantly more advanced

marketing stage. Therefore, we have

considered TPC’s direct and indirect

sales to Germany as being at a single

level of trade.

Because the selling functions

performed for TPC’s sales in the two

markets are essentially the same,

irrespective of channel of distribution,

we find that all of TPC’s sales were

made at a single level of trade.

Therefore, no level of trade adjustment

or CEP offset is warranted in the

calculation of TPC’s antidumping

margin.

SFP and TIPCO

In this review, SFP and TIPCO

claimed that all of their sales were made

at a similar channel of distribution

(direct sales to customers in export

markets), and involved identical selling

functions, irrespective of market. In

examining these selling functions, we

found that sales activities were indeed

limited to negotiation of prices,

processing of purchase orders/contracts,

invoicing, and collection of payment;

there was little or no strategic and

economic planning, advertising or sales

promotion, technical services, technical

assistance, or after-sale service

performed in either market. Therefore,

for these two respondents we have

preliminarily found that there is a single

(and identical) level of trade in both

markets, and no level of trade

adjustment is required for comparison

of U.S. sales to third-country sales.

Cost of Production Analysis

As stated above, based on timely

allegations filed by the petitioner, the

Department initiated cost of production

(COP) investigations of SFP and TPC to

determine whether sales were made at

prices below the COP. See

Memorandum from the team to Barbara

Stafford, dated January 10, 1997.

Because we disregarded sales below

the COP in the last completed segment

of the proceeding for TIPCO (i.e., the

less-than-fair-value investigation), we

had reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that sales of the foreign product

under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review may

have been made at prices below the

COP, as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,

we initiated a COP investigation of sales

by TIPCO in the third-country

comparison market.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP, by model, based on the

sum of the cost of materials, fabrication

and general expenses, and packing

costs. We relied on the submitted COPs,

except in the following specific

instances where the submitted costs

were not appropriately quantified or

valued.

General—Fruit Cost Allocation

The Department’s long-standing

practice, now codified at section

773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, is to rely on a

company’s normal books and records if

such records are in accordance with

home country generally accepted

accounting principles (GAAP) and

reasonably reflect the costs associated

with production of the merchandise. In

addition, as the statute indicates, the

Department considers whether an

accounting methodology, particulary an

allocation methodology, has been

historically used by the company. See

section 773 (f)(1)(A) of the Act.

During the POR, TIPCO, SFP and TPC

abandoned their historical fruit cost

allocation methodology. We reviewed

each of the newly adopted fruit cost

allocation methodologies, and found

that all three were based on the relative

weight of the fruit contained in the CPF

produced. As discussed in the final

determination in the underlying

investigation (see Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand,

60 FR 29553, 29561 (June 5, 1995)),

allocating fresh pineapple fruit costs to

various pineapple products solely on

the basis of weight (i.e., a quantitative

factor) is inappropriate. Cores and shells

are used in juice production, while

trimmed and cored pineapple cylinders

are used in CPF production. Because

these various parts of a pineapple are

not interchangeable when it comes to

CPF versus juice production, it would

be unreasonable to value all parts of the

pineapple equally by using a weightbased allocation methodology. The

revised fruit cost allocation

methodologies which each company

changed to during the POR were weightbased and did not incorporate any

measure of the qualitative factor of the

different parts of the pineapple. As a

result, such methodologies, although in

conformity with Thai GAAP, do not

reasonably reflect the costs associated

with production of CPF.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42491

Therefore, for each company, we

recalculated the fruit cost allocated to

CPF based on a net realizable value

(NRV) methodology. As described in the

final determination of the underlying

investigation, this NRV methodology

reasonably reflects costs associated with

CPF production. See id. at 29560. The

NRV methodology was based on

company-specific historical amounts for

sales and separable costs during the

five-year period of 1990 through 1994.

In addition to the revised fruit cost

allocation described above, we made the

following company-specific adjustments

to the submitted costs.

TIPCO

1. We revised packing medium cost

for juice packed products and the can

costs to reflect corrections obtained at

verification. See Cost Verification

Report from William H. Jones to

Christian B. Marsh, dated July 3, 1997.

2. We adjusted certain costs incurred

prior to the split-off point which were

improperly allocated.

3. We revised TIPCO’s general and

administrative (G&A) expenses to

exclude foreign exchange gains

generated by accounts receivable.

4. We revised TIPCO’s financial

expenses using its consolidated

financial expenses.

SFP

1. We revised the total pineapple fruit

costs to include year-end adjustments

for physical inventory, plantation costs,

and skin and core revenues. See Cost

Verification Report from William H.

Jones to Christian B. Marsh, dated July

3, 1997 (SFP cost verification report).

2. We revised the costs of cans, sugar,

labor, overhead and packing to reflect

corrections obtained at verification. See

SFP cost verification report.

3. We revised SFP’s G&A rate to

reflect the expenses incurred during the

fiscal year ended September 30, 1995.

4. We revised SFP’s net financial

expense to reflect expenses and shortterm interest income for the fiscal year

ended September 30, 1995.

TPC

1. We revised the can and packing

material cost to reflect corrections

obtained at verification. See Cost

Verification Report from Theresa L.

Caherty to Christian B. Marsh, dated

July 2, 1997 (TPC cost verification

report).

2. We revised the packing costs to

include fixed packing costs and to

correct errors found at verification. See

TPC cost verification report.

3. We calculated a single weightedaverage cost for products with identical

physical characteristics.

4. We recalculated TPC’s financial

expense rate to include interest

expenses incurred to include net foreign

exchange losses from loans, investments

and operations; and to include shortterm interest revenue.

B. Test of Third-Country Comparison

Market Sales Prices

We compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP for each respondent to the

third-country comparison market sales

of the foreign like product as required

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order

to determine whether these sales had

been made at prices below the COP

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities, and whether such

prices were sufficient to permit the

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. On a product-specific

basis, we compared the revised COP to

the third-country comparison market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, taxes, rebates, commissions and

other direct and indirect selling

expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were made at prices below the COP, we

did not disregard any below-cost sales

of that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product were made at prices

below the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales because such sales

were found to be made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with sections

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and

based on comparisons of price to

weighted-average COPs for the POR we

determined that the below-cost sales of

the product were at prices which would

not permit recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act. Where all contemporaneous

sales of a specific product were made at

prices below the COP, we calculated NV

based on CV, in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

We found that, for certain CPF

products, TIPCO, SFP and TPC made

third-country comparison market sales

at below COP prices within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities.

Further, we found that these sales prices

did not permit for the recovery of costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

therefore excluded these sales from our

analysis in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

Constructed Value

For those CPF products for which we

could not determine the NV based on

comparison market sales either because

(1) there were no contemporaneous

sales of a comparable product or (2) all

contemporaneous sales of the

comparison product failed the COP test,

we compared export prices to CV. In

accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the

Act, we calculated CV based on the sum

of the COM of the product sold in the

United States, plus amounts for general

expenses, third-country comparison

market profit and U.S. packing costs.

We calculated each respondent’s CV

based on the methodology described in

the ‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of this

notice, above. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual

amounts incurred and realized by

TIPCO, SFP and TPC in connection with

the production and sale of the foreign

like product, in the ordinary course of

trade, for consumption in the foreign

country to calculate general expenses

and third-country comparison market

profit.

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.56 for COS differences. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on third-country

market sales and adding U.S. direct

selling expenses. For comparisons to

CEP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting direct selling expenses

incurred on third-country market sales

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses

except those deducted from the starting

price in calculating CEP pursuant to

section 772(d) of the Act (i.e., we added

letter of credit expenses and bank

charges). We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for indirect selling

expenses incurred on third-country

market sales to offset U.S. commissions

in EP and CEP comparisons;

specifically, we deducted from normal

value the lesser of (1) the amount of

commission paid on a U.S. sale for a

particular product, or (2) the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on

the third-country market sales for a

particular product.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates

published by the Federal Reserve, in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate
42492 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In accordance

with the Department’s practice, we have

determined as a general matter that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

determine that a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate. However, for the preliminary

results in this review we have

determined that a fluctuation did not

exist during the POR, and we have not

substituted the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

January 11, 1995, through June 30, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Siam Food Products Public

Company Ltd ........................... 13.25

The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd ................................. 33.06

Thai Pineapple Canning Industry

Corp., Ltd ................................ 6.54

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within ten days of publication. If

requested, a hearing will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

The Department will issue a notice of

the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

briefs, within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. The final results of

this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. For duty assessment

purposes, we calculated, on an

importer-specific basis, an assessment

rate by aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing

this amount by the total entered value

of subject merchandise sold during the

POR. This rate will be used for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

the relevant entries of subject

merchandise during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of canned pineapple fruit from Thailand

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for SFP, TIPCO, and

TPC will be the rate established in the

final results of this administrative

review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (3) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review, the cash deposit

rate will be 24.64 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the less-thanfair-value investigation. See 60 FR

36775, 36776 (July 18, 1995).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 353.22, and

19 CFR 353.25.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–20733 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–807]

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium

From the Russian Federation: Notice

of Preliminary Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

(Shieldalloy), the petitioner, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from the Russian Federation (Russia).

This notice of preliminary results covers

the period January 4, 1995, through June

30, 1996. The Department is now

rescinding this review in part with

respect to one exporter, Odermet, Ltd.,

who had no shipments of the subject

merchandise during the period of

review. For the second exporter, Galt

Alloys, Inc.(Galt), the review indicates

the existence of dumping margins

during this period for sales of

merchandise from one producer.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the export price (EP)

and the NV. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

argument in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument:

(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Mary Jenkins,

AD/CVD Enforcement II, Office 5,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4136 or

(202) 482–1756, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, (the Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Rounds

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations as codified at 19 CFR

part 353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on