[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47440-47441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23851]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-614-801]


Fresh Kiwifruit From New Zealand; Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 3, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the final results of its administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand. On 
December 27, 1996, the Department published amended final results of 
this review. The review covers one exporter, the New Zealand Kiwifruit 
Marketing Board (NZKMB), and the period from June 1, 1994, through May 
31, 1995. Based on the correction of ministerial errors made with 
respect to the amended final results of December 27, 1996, we are 
amending the final results a second time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul M. Stolz or Thomas F. Futtner, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-4474 or 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    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 Departments regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 353 (1997).

Background

    On September 3, 1996, the Department published the final results 
(61 FR 46438) of its administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand (57 FR 23203 (June 2, 1992)). 
On December 27, 1996 the Department published amended final results of 
this review. The review covered one exporter, the NZKMB. The Department 
has now amended the final results of this administrative review a 
second time in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by the order under review is fresh kiwifruit. 
Processed kiwifruit, including fruit jams, jellies, pastes, purees, 
mineral waters, or juices made from or containing kiwifruit, are not 
covered under the scope of the order. The subject merchandise is 
currently classifiable under subheading 0810.90.20 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS number is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this review is dispositive.

Amended Final Results

    After publication of our amended final results, we received timely 
allegations of ministerial errors from the respondent, NZKMB, and the 
petitioner, the California Kiwifruit Commission.
    Allegation 1: NZKMB alleges that the Department failed to properly 
initialize the variable for home market pallet expenses, PALEXPH, in 
the computer program. The petitioner agrees with NZKMB's allegation. 
The Department agrees with both respondent and petitioner and has 
adjusted the computer program to properly initialize the variable.
    Allegation 2: NZKMB alleges that the Department incorrectly added 
imputed credit and inventory carrying costs into the computation of 
constructed value (CV). Since these costs are already included in CV, 
as elements of selling, general and administrative expenses, respondent 
asserts that adding them would result in double-counting. We agree and 
have revised the program accordingly.
    Allegation 3: NZKMB argues that imputed credit expenses should be 
deducted from CV and inventory carrying costs should be deducted up to 
the CEP offset cap. We agree regarding the deduction of credit and 
inventory carrying costs and have revised the program accordingly.
    Allegation 4: NZKMB alleges that the Department treated the sum of 
the cost of manufacturing (COM) and G&A as the COM, and then double-
counted G&A by adding it again in the calculation of COP. We agree and 
have corrected the computer program as appropriate.
    Allegation 5: NZKMB alleges that the Department converted normal 
value for price-to-price comparisons into U.S. dollars by erroneously 
multiplying, instead of dividing, the NV by the exchange rate, We agree 
and have corrected the computer program as appropriate.
    Allegation 6: Petitioner alleges that the Department's program 
applies the New Zealand rate of exchange twice to the United States 
packing cost used to create the variable ``FUPDOL''. We agree and have 
corrected the program as appropriate.
    For a description of allegations we did not agree were clerical 
errors, see the memorandum from Tom Futtner, Program Manager, to Holly 
Kuga, Senior Office Director, dated July 25, 1997.
    Upon correction of the error described above as allegation 1, the 
Department has determined that all home market sales were below the 
cost of production, thus requiring the calculation of constructed 
value. Section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act states that in the absence of 
above cost sales, selling expenses and profit shall be based on (i) 
expenses and profit of the respondent's other products, or (ii) the 
expenses and profit of other producers subject to the antidumping 
investigation or review, or (iii) any other reasonable method. The 
first two alternatives and not available in this case, since NZKMB 
sells no other products and since there are no other New Zealand 
exporters subject to this review. Therefore we must rely on ``other 
reasonable'' methods. In this case, since NZKMB earned no profits on 
home market sales and we have no other information on the record with 
respect to profit earned in the home market, as facts available we used 
the profits

[[Page 47441]]

realized at the grower level. In this instance, we used the average 
profit of the twenty sampled growers as the profit figure in our margin 
calculations. With respect to selling expenses, we have used the 
selling expenses associated with the home market sales. See Final 
Results of Administrative Review, Ferrosilicon from Brazil, (61 FR 
59407), dated November 22, 1996.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors, we have 
determined the following margin exists for the period June 1, 1994, 
through May 31, 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board................               0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and NV 
may vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly to the 
U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm 
will be 0.00 percent; and (2) the cash deposit rate for merchandise 
exported by all other manufacturers and exporters will be the ``all 
others'' rate of 98.60 percent established in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation; in accordance with the Department practice. See Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal 
Mogul Corporation, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: August 27, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-23851 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M