47436 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

(see Amended Final Determination, 60

FR 49582 (September 26, 1995)). These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

This notice serves as a preliminary

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.

These administrative reviews and

notices are published in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23848 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration A–

351–817

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Brazil: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

the respondent, Usinas Siderurgicas de

Minas Gerais (‘‘USIMINAS’’), and from

petitioners (Bethlehem Steel

Corporation; U.S. Steel Company, a Unit

of USX Corporation; Inland Steel

Industries, Inc.; Geneva Steel; Gulf

States Steel Inc. of Alabama; Sharon

Steel Corporation; and Lukens Steel

Company), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Brazil. This review covers the above

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States. The

period of review (POR) is August 1,

1995, through July 31, 1996.

We preliminarily determine the

dumping margin for USIMINAS and its

affiliate Companhia Siderurgica Paulista

(‘‘COSIPA’’) to be 10.49 percent during

the POR. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samantha Denenberg or Linda Ludwig,

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0413 or (202) 482–

3833, 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 Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 353

(1997).

Background

On July 9, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 37062) the final affirmative

antidumping duty determination on

certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate

from Brazil. We published an

antidumping duty order on August 19,

1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 44164). On August

12, 1996, the Department published the

Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review of this order for

the period August 1, 1995–July 31, 1996

(61 FR 41768). The Department received

requests for an administrative review of

USIMINAS’’ exports from USIMINAS

itself, a producer/exporter of the subject

merchandise, and from the petitioners.

We published a notice of initiation of

the review on September 17, 1996 (61

FR 48882).

Significant inflation was an issue in

the previous segments of this

proceeding. The Department required

that USIMINAS report monthly inflation

rates for 1995–1996. The Department’s

analysis of the inflation rates

determined that inflation did not exceed

15% during the POR. The Department

did not require USIMINAS to report

monthly costs, as it was determined that

inflation was not significant during the

period of review. See the Department’s

letter from Linda Ludwig to Christopher

S. Stokes, dated October 22, 1996. We

are not using the Department’s

inflationary methodology in these

preliminary results of the review.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for issuing a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to complete the preliminary

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On March 21, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to 365

days after the last day of the month in

which the anniversary date of the order

occurred. See Extension of Time Limit

for Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 13596 (March 21, 1997).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Affiliated Respondents

Pursuant to section 771 (33) of the

Act, the Department considers the

following persons or parties to be

affiliated:

A. Members of a family, including

brothers and sisters (whether by the

whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors,

and lineal descendants.

B. Any officer or director of an

organization and such organization.

C. Partners.

D. Employer and employee.

E. Any person directly or indirectly

owning, controlling, or holding with

power to vote, five percent or more of

the outstanding voting stock or shares of

any organization and such organization.

F. Two or more persons directly or

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or

under common control with, any

person.

G. Any person who controls any other

person and such other person.

For the purposes of this paragraph, a

person shall be considered to control

another person if the person is legally or

operationally in a position to exercise

restraint or direction over the other

person.

USIMINAS acknowledges that

COSIPA is affiliated with it under the

antidumping statute because, during the

POR, as indicated by publicly available

information on the record, USIMINAS

owned 49 percent of the voting stock of

COSIPA. See Section A Response at 3.

It is the Department’s practice to

collapse affiliated producers for

purposes of calculating a margin when

the facts demonstrate that the

relationship is such that there is a strong

possibility of manipulation of prices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47437

and production decisions that would

result in circumvention of the

antidumping law. See the Department’s

internal memorandum from Richard

Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini, dated

March 21, 1997. Although the

Department’s new regulations published

May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27410) do not

govern this review, they do codify the

Department’s current practice. Current

practice calls for the Department to treat

two or more affiliated producers as a

single entity (i.e., ‘‘collapse’’ the firms)

for purposes of calculating a dumping

margin when the following three criteria

are met:

1. The producers must be affiliated;

2. The producers must have

production facilities for similar or

identical products that would not

require substantial retooling of either

facility in order to restructure

manufacturing priorities; and

3. There must be a significant

potential for the manipulation of price

or production. See 19 CFR Part 351 et.

al., Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27410.

As indicated above, USIMINAS and

COSIPA are considered affiliated.

Further, based on publicly available

information, it was determined that

USIMINAS and COSIPA have

production facilities for identical

products and that no substantial

retooling would be required for

USIMINAS and COSIPA to restructure

their production priorities with respect

to production of subject merchandise. In

identifying whether there is a significant

potential for the manipulation of price

or production, the factors the

Department considers include: the level

of common ownership; whether

managerial employees or board

members of one of the affiliated

producers sit on the board(s) of directors

of the other affiliated parties; and

whether operations are intertwined,

such as through the sharing of sales

information, involvement in production

and pricing decisions, the sharing of

facilities or employees, or significant

transactions between the affiliated

producers. The following factors

support a conclusion that the

relationship between USIMINAS and

COSIPA has significant potential for

manipulation of price or production: a

large share of COSIPA’s stock is held by

USIMINAS and related parties, there is

cross-representation on the governing

bodies of the two companies and both

companies are making at least a portion

of their home market sales of subject

merchandise through the same channels

of distribution (distributors affiliated

with USIMINAS). Thus, the Department

has determined to collapse USIMINAS

and COSIPA and to treat them as a

single producer of cut-to-length carbon

steel plate for purpose of this

antidumping duty review. See the

Department’s internal memorandum

from Richard Weible to Joseph A.

Spetrini, dated March 21, 1997

(‘‘Collapsing Memorandum’’).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review constitute one

‘‘class or kind’’ of merchandise: certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These

products include hot-rolled carbon steel

universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled

products rolled on four faces or in a

closed box pass, of a width exceeding

150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250

millimeters and of a thickness of not

less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and

without patterns in relief), of

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated

nor coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances;

and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flatrolled products in straight lengths, of

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither

clad, plated, nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances, 4.75

millimeters or more in thickness and of

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters

and measures at least twice the

thickness, as currently classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

under item numbers 7208.40.3030,

7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060,

7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive. Included are flatrolled products of non-rectangular

cross-section where such cross-section

is achieved subsequent to the rolling

process (i.e., products which have been

‘‘worked after rolling’’) for example,

products which have been beveled or

rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade

X–70 plate.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent by using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturing

facilities of USIMINAS and COSIPA, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the verification

reports, the public versions of which are

available at the Department of

Commerce, in the Central Records Unit

(CRU), Room B099.

Transactions Reviewed

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)

of the Act, the Department is required

to determine the normal value (NV) and

export price (EP) of each entry of subject

merchandise.

The Department granted respondent’s

request for limited time reporting of

sales data. USIMINAS/COSIPA was

only required to report home market

sales during a window of February 1995

through September 1995. See Letter to

Respondent’s Counsel (Willkie Farr &

Gallagher) from Linda Ludwig, October

22, 1996.

Based on a review of USIMINAS/

COSIPA’s submissions and verification

findings, the Department determined

that USIMINAS/COSIPA need not

report its home market downstream

sales because the total volume and value

of home market sales to affiliated parties

constitutes a relatively small percentage

of USIMINAS/COSIPA’s total home

market sales. See Decision

Memorandum on Reporting

Downstream Sales, April 1, 1997.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by the respondent, covered by

the description in the Scope of the

Review section, above, and sold in the

home market during the POR, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate by

USIMINAS/ COSIPA to the United

States were made at less than fair value,

we compared the EP to the NV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 777A (d)(2)

of the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Export Price

We used EP as defined in section

772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP

based on prices to unaffiliated

customers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price for inland freight,

brokerage and handling, and
47438 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

international freight. See USIMINAS

and COSIPA Sales Verification Reports,

August 12, 1997. Based on verification

of the U.S. sales response, we made

adjustments to the gross unit price from

a theoretical metric ton basis to an

actual metric ton basis in order to

convert all fields to the same weight

basis.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country was sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States, pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the home market, in the

usual commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade, at the same

level of trade as the export price. See

‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below.

Where appropriate, we deducted

rebates, discounts, packing costs, credit

expenses, movement expenses, pre-sale

warehousing, inland insurance. We

added interest revenue. We also

deducted IPI tax and the ICMS tax from

the reported gross unit price, since the

reported price included those taxes.

Based on our verification of USIMINAS/

COSIPA’s home market sales response,

we made adjustments on certain sales to

reported imputed credit expenses.

Further, we added U.S. Commissions

and U.S. credit expenses to NV; because

there were no home market

commissions, we deducted from NV the

lesser of either (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 home market sales for a particular

product.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

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

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) accompanying the URAA, to the

extent practicable, the Department will

calculate normal values based on sales

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

sales (either EP or CEP). When the

Department is unable to find sales in the

comparison market at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale(s), the Department

may compare sales in the U.S. and

foreign markets at different levels of

trade, and adjust NV if appropriate. The

NV level of trade is that of the startingprice sales in the home market. As the

Department explained in Gray Portland

Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (‘‘Cement from

Mexico’’), 62 Fed. Reg. 17148, 17156

(April 9, 1997), for both EP and CEP, the

relevant transaction for the level of trade

analysis is the sale from the exporter to

the importer.

To determine whether home market

sales are at a different level of trade than

U.S. sales, we examine whether the

home market sales are at different stages

in the marketing process than the U.S.

sales. The marketing process in both

markets begins with the good being sold

by the producer and extends to the sale

to the final user. The chain of

distribution between the producer and

the final user may have many or few

links, and each respondent’s sales are

generally to an importer, whether

independent or affiliated. We review

and compare the distribution systems in

the home market and the United States,

including selling functions, class of

customer, and the extent and level of

selling expenses for each claimed level

of trade. Customer categories such as

distributor, retailer or end-user are

commonly used by respondents to

describe level of trade, but without

substantiation, they are insufficient to

establish that a claimed level of trade is

valid. An analysis of the chain of

distribution and of the selling functions

substantiates or invalidates the claimed

customer categorization levels. If the

claimed levels are different, the selling

functions performed in selling to each

level should also be different.

Conversely, if customer levels are

nominally the same, the selling

functions performed should also be the

same. Different levels of trade

necessarily involve differences in

selling functions, but differences in

selling functions, even substantial ones,

are not alone sufficient to establish a

difference in the level of trade.

Differences in levels of trade are

characterized by purchasers at different

stages in the chain of distribution and

sellers performing qualitatively or

quantitatively different functions in

selling to them.

When we compare U.S. sales to home

market sales at a different level of trade,

we make a level-of-trade adjustment if

the difference in level of trade affects

price comparability. We determine any

effect on price comparability by

examining sales at different levels of

trade in a single market, the home

market (or the third-country market

used to calculate NV when the home

market is not viable or otherwise

inappropriate as a basis for NV). Any

price effect must be manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between home market (or third-country)

sales used for comparison and sales at

the equivalent level of trade of the

export transaction. See Granular

Polytetrafluorethylene Resin from Italy;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 Fed.

Reg. 26283, 26285 (May 13, 1997);

Cement from Mexico. To quantify the

price differences, we calculate the

difference in the average of the net

prices of the same models sold at

different levels of trade. We use the

average percentage difference between

these net prices to adjust NV when the

level of trade of NV is different from

that of the export sale. If there is a

pattern of no price differences, then the

difference in level of trade does not

have a price effect and, therefore, no

adjustment is necessary.

USIMINAS/COSIPA sold to a single

customer in the U.S. market (a trading

company). In the home market,

USIMINAS/COSIPA sold to two

categories of customers (wholesalers/

distributors and end-users) and

performed the same selling functions for

all sales to all its U.S. and home market

customers. Originally, respondents

claimed and reported two levels of

trade: sales directly from the producer

to the customer and sales from the

producer to an affiliated distributor for

resale. However, since the Department

determined that respondents need not

report downstream sales by affiliated

distributors, respondent is no longer

claiming two levels of trade. See

Transactions Reviewed section above.

Our analysis of the questionnaire

response and information collected at

verification lead us to conclude that

sales within each market and between

markets are not made at different levels

of trade. Accordingly, we preliminarily

find that all sales in the home market

utilized by the Department and all sales

to the U.S. market are made at the same

level of trade. Therefore, all price

comparisons are at the same level of

trade and no adjustment pursuant to

section 773(a)(7)(A) is warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

Petitioners alleged on January 15,

1997 that USIMINAS sold cut-to-length

carbon steel plate in the home market at

prices below the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’). Based on this allegation, and

in accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act, the Department determined, on

March 20, 1997, that it had reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that

USIMINAS had sold the subject

merchandise in the home market below

the COP. See Decision Memorandum

from Linda Ludwig to Richard O.

Weible (March 20, 1997). As a result,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices 47439

the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether

USIMINAS made home market sales

during this POR at prices below their

COP within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act. After determining that

USIMINAS and COSIPA should be

collapsed, the Department extended the

COP investigation to include COSIPA.

Before making any fair value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of USIMINAS/COSIPA’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for home

market selling, general and

administrative expenses and packing

costs in accordance with section

773(b)(3) of the Act. Based on findings

made at verification, we have

recalculated USIMINAS/COSIPA’s

general and administrative expenses

and interest. See Analysis Memorandum

for The File from Samantha Denenberg,

September 2, 1997.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We used the respondent’s weightedaverage COP, as adjusted (see above), for

the period 1/1/95–12/31/95. We

compared the weighted-average COP

figures to home market sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act. In determining

whether to disregard home-market sales

made at prices below the COP, we

examined whether (1) within an

extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, rebates, and discounts.

C. Results of COP Test

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

where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than 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 during the POR were

at prices less than the COP, we

determined such sales to have been

made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within

an extended period of time in

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

the Act, and not at prices which would

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Therefore, we disregarded such belowcost sales. Where all contemporaneous

sales of a comparison product were

disregarded, we calculated NV based on

CV.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of USIMINAS/COSIPA’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, U.S.

packing costs, interest expenses as

reported in the U.S. sales database and

profit. As noted above, we recalculated

USIMINAS/COSIPA’S general and

administrative expenses and interest

expenses based on our verification

results. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A

and profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by the respondent in

connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

Where we compared CV to EP, we

added U.S. commissions to CV, and

then we deducted from CV the lesser of

either (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 home

market sales for a particular product.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. 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 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 a fluctuation

exists, we substitute the benchmark for

the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/Exporter Period Margin

(percent)

Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais, S.A. ................................................................................................ 8/1/95–7/31/96 10.49

Companhia Siderurgica Paulista .................................................................................................................. 8/1/95–7/31/96 10.49

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 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs,

limited to issues raised in those briefs,

may be filed not later than 37 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including its analysis of issues raised in

the case and rebuttal briefs, not later

than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this antidumping duty

review for all shipments of certain cutto-length carbon steel plate from Brazil,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash

deposit rate for the reviewed company

will be that established in the final

results of review; (2) for exporters not

covered in this review, but covered in

the LTFV investigation or previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

from the LTFV investigation or the most

recent previous review; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a previous review, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 75.54

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate in the
47440 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Notices

LTFV investigation. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

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 administrative review and notice

are published in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary, for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–23855 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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