Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66703

2Hyundai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd., a

respondent in the investigation, was excluded from

the antidumping duty order. See Antidumping Duty

Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, 61

FR 41057, 41058 (August 11, 1995).

1The petitioners are the Coalition for Fair

Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the

American Mushroom Institute and the following

domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc.,

Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc.,

Toughkenamon, PA; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.,

Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp.,

Temple, PA; Mushrooms Canning Company,

Kennett Square, PA; Southwood Farms, Hockessin,

DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; United

Canning Corp., North Lima, OH.

2Because of an affirmative critical circumstance

finding, liquidation was suspended 90 days prior to

publication of the preliminary less-than-fair-value

investigation for these companies.

Corporation of Japan was assigned a

margin of 44.20 percent. In the second,

covering the period August 1, 1997,

through July 31, 1998, Sumitomo was

assigned a margin of 0.00 percent. In

addition, there have been two

administrative reviews of the order on

OCTG from Korea. In the first, covering

the period August 1, 1996, through July

31, 1997, SeAH Steel Corporation

(‘‘SeAH’’) was assigned a margin of 2.93

percent. In the second, covering the

period August 1, 1997, through July 31,

1998, SeAH was assigned a margin of

15.02 percent.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised by parties to these

sunset reviews are addressed in the

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Jeffrey A. May,

Director, Office of Policy, Import

Administration, to Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated October 31, 2000,

which is hereby adopted by 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 were the orders 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

B–099, of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at http:/ia.ita.doc.gov/frn,

under the heading ‘‘October 2000.’’ 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 oil country

tubular goods from Argentina, Italy,

Japan, and Korea would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the following percentage weightedaverage margins:

Country Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Argentina ..................................................................................... Siderca SAIC ............................................................................. 1.36

All Others ................................................................................... 1.36

Italy .............................................................................................. Dalmine S.p.A. ........................................................................... 49.78

Acciaierie Tubificio Arvedi S.p.A. ............................................... 49.78

General Sider Europa S.p.A. ..................................................... 49.78

All Others ................................................................................... 49.78

Japan .......................................................................................... Nippon Steel Corporation .......................................................... 44.20

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. ................................................ 44.20

All Others ................................................................................... 44.20

Korea ........................................................................................... Union Steel Manufacturing Co. .................................................. 12.17

All Others 2 ................................................................................. 12.17

This notice serves as the only

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 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

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 an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

These five-year (‘‘sunset’’) reviews

and notice are in accordance with

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28566 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS –P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–851]

Preliminary Results of First New

Shipper Review and First Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a timely

request from two manufacturer/

exporters and the petitioners,1 on March

30, 2000, the Department of Commerce

published a notice of initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from the People’s

Republic of China with respect to China

Processed Food Import & Export Co.,

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., Mei

Wei Food Industry Co., Ltd., and Tak

Fat Trading Co. The periods of review

are August 5, 1998, through January 31,

2000, for China Processed Food Import

& Export Co. and Gerber Food (Yunnan)

Co., Ltd., and May 7, 1998, through

January 31, 2000, for Mei Wei Food

Industry Co., Ltd. and Tak Fat Trading

Co.2 See Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 65 FR 16875 (March 30, 2000).

As a result of these reviews, the

Department of Commerce has

preliminarily determined that dumping

margins exist for exports of the subject

merchandise for the covered periods.

On March 31, 2000, the Department of

Commerce published a notice of

initiation of a new shipper antidumping

duty review of Raoping Xingyu Foods

Co., Ltd. covering the period August 5,

1998, through January 31, 2000. On June

30, and August 17, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary and final results,

respectively, for exports by Mei Wei

Food Industry Co., Ltd. and Tak Fat

Trading Co. on an expedited basis.

Therefore, this notice constitutes a

preliminary results of administrative

66704 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

review for China Processed Food Import

& Export Co. and Gerber Food (Yunnan)

Co., Ltd. and a preliminary results of

new shipper review for Raoping Xingyu

Foods Co., Ltd.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

their arguments (1) a statement of the

issues and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Kate Johnson,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–4929,

respectively.

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the

three respondents that submitted full

responses to the antidumping

questionnaire for these reviews and

have been found preliminarily to be

entitled to a separate rate, we have

preliminarily determined that U.S. sales

have been made below normal value. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of these reviews, we

will instruct the Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries on an importerspecific or entry-specific basis, as

applicable (see ‘‘Assessment Rates’’

section of this notice for further

discussion).

Background

On February 19, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 8308) an antidumping duty order on

certain preserved mushrooms from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC). On

February 14, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 7348) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from the PRC

covering the period August 5, 1998,

through January 31, 2000. On February

22, 2000, the Department received a

timely request from Raoping Xingyu

Foods Co., Ltd. (Raoping), in accordance

with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and

19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper

review of this antidumping duty order.

On February 29, 2000, the petitioners

requested, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213, that we conduct an

administrative review of exports of

certain preserved mushrooms from the

PRC to the United States by China

Processed Food Import & Export Co.

(CPF), Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co.

(Gerber), Mei Wei Food Industry Co.,

Ltd. (Mei Wei), and Tak Fat Trading Co.

(Tak Fat). CPF and Gerber also

requested on February 28, 2000, that we

conduct administrative reviews of their

respective exports. On March 17, 2000,

Raoping agreed to waive the time limits

in order that the Department, pursuant

to 19 C.F.R 351.214(j)(3), may conduct

this review concurrently with the first

annual administrative review of this

order.

On March 29, 2000, the Department

issued the antidumping questionnaire to

CPF, Gerber, Raoping, Mei Wei, and Tak

Fat. On March 30, 2000, the Department

published a notice of initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from the PRC (65

FR 16875). On March 31, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of a new shipper antidumping

duty review with respect to Raoping (65

FR 17257). We received responses to the

antidumping questionnaire during April

and May 2000.

On May 10, 2000, the Department

provided the parties an opportunity to

submit publicly available information

(PAI) for consideration in these

preliminary results.

On June 30, 2000, we published

separate preliminary results on an

expedited basis for Mei Wei and Tak Fat

who did not respond to the

Department’s questionnaire (65 FR

40609). On August 17, 2000, the

Department published the final results

for exports by Mei Wei and Tak Fat (65

FR 50183), on an expedited basis.

The Department issued supplemental

questionnaires to the respondents

during June and July 2000. In July and

August 2000, the Department received

supplemental questionnaire responses

from the respondents.

On August 7, 2000, the petitioner

requested that the Department rescind

the instant review as to CPF claiming

that, at this stage of the administrative

review, substantial record evidence

establishes that CPF had no entries of

subject merchandise in the United

States during the period of review

(POR). On September 19, 2000, CPF

argued that rescission is unwarranted

because the Department’s regulations do

not make rescission mandatory under

these circumstances and the Department

has already spent substantial resources

investigating CPF. The Department has

not rescinded this review with respect

to CPF because the sale by CPF to the

United States was made during the POR

and the entry information for this sale

is part of the record of this review. See

‘‘Rescission Request’’ section below for

further discussion.

During the period August 31 through

September 6, 2000, we conducted

verifications of Raoping, Raoping’s

producer, Raoping Yucun Canned Foods

Factory (Raoping Yucun), and Gerber.

We issued verification reports on

September 29, 2000, for the Raoping

companies, and on October 2, 2000, for

Gerber.

The Department is conducting these

reviews in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Rescission Request

Under section 351.213(e) of the

Department’s regulations, an

administrative review normally will

cover, as appropriate, sales, exports, or

entries of the subject merchandise made

during the particular period under

review. There is no requirement that

both the sale and the entry

corresponding to the particular sale both

occur within the POR in order to review

that sale/entry; however, we must be

able to assess antidumping duties on

entries, rather than sales, as a result of

that review. Under section 351.213(d)(3)

of the Department’s regulations, the

Department may rescind an

administrative review, in whole or only

with respect to a particular producer or

exporter, if it concludes that, during the

period covered by the review, there

were no entries, exports, or sales of the

subject merchandise, as the case may be.

See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms

from Chile: Final Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 43292, 43292–43293 (July

13, 2000), where the Department

rescinded the entire review because at

least one respondent reported that it did

not export the subject merchandise

during the POR and U.S. Customs

import statistics confirmed that there

were no U.S. imports/entries of such

merchandise by respondents or any

other company during the POR. See

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China; Preliminary Results

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 64 FR 10986,

10986–10987 (March 8, 1999) (in which

case the Department rescinded a review

with respect to two exporters, one of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66705

3On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

which reported it made one sale during

the previous POR which it believed was

to be entered into the United States

during the POR, but the Department

could not establish, for duty assessment

purposes, that it in fact was

subsequently entered into the United

States). In this case, CPF sold and

exported the subject merchandise

during the POR and placed information

on the record indicating that the

corresponding entry into the U.S.

Customs territory was made shortly after

the POR. Therefore, this case is properly

distinguished from those cited above,

and we do not find that recission of this

administrative review with respect to

CPF is appropriate in this instance. As

stated in the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’

section of this notice, we intend to issue

entry-specific liquidation instructions

for each respondent (CPF and Raoping)

whose sale and entry occurred in

different PORs.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review

are certain preserved mushrooms

whether imported whole, sliced, diced,

or as stems and pieces. The preserved

mushrooms covered under this review

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. Preserved

mushrooms may be imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

Included within the scope of this review

are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are

presalted and packed in a heavy salt

solution to provisionally preserve them

for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this

review 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; (4) frozen mushrooms; and

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are

prepared or preserved by means of

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain

oil or other additives.3

The merchandise subject to this

review is classifiable under subheadings

2003.1000.27, 2003.1000.31,

2003.1000.37, 2003.1000.43,

2003.1000.47, 2003.1000.53, and

0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’).

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this review is dispositive.

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving non-market

economy (NME) countries, the

Department begins with a rebuttable

presumption that all companies within

the country are subject to government

control and thus should be assessed a

single antidumping duty deposit rate. In

this case, each respondent has requested

a separate company-specific rate. Both

Gerber and Raoping are either wholly or

majority foreign-owned companies;

therefore, we determined that no further

separate rate analysis is required for

these companies. CPF is wholly owned

by China National Cereals, Oils, &

Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.,

which in turn is owned by ‘‘all the

people.’’ In the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation we determined

that CPF was eligible for a separate rate.

As stated in the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon

Carbide from the People’s Republic of

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)

(Silicon Carbide) and in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22545

(May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol),

ownership of the company by ‘‘all the

people’’ does not require the application

of a single rate. Accordingly, CPF is

eligible for consideration of a separate

rate.

The Department’s separate rate test to

determine whether the exporters are

independent from government control is

not concerned, in general, with

macroeconomic/border-type controls,

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and

minimum export prices, particularly if

these controls are imposed to prevent

dumping. The test focuses, rather, on

controls over the investment, pricing,

and output decision-making process at

the individual firm level. See e.g.,

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate

from Ukraine: Final Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR

61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997);

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from

the People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276,

61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey

from the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725,

14726 (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under a test

arising out of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers

from the People’s Republic of China, 56

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified

in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate

rates criteria, the Department assigns

separate rates in NME cases only if

respondents can demonstrate the

absence of both de jure and de facto

governmental control over export

activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The respondents have placed on the

record a number of documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control,

including the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the

People’s Republic of China’’ and the

‘‘Company Law of the People’s Republic

of China.’’

In prior cases, the Department has

analyzed these laws and found that they

establish an absence of de jure control.

See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer

Slides with Rollers from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 54472

(October 24, 1995); see also Furfuryl

Alcohol. We have no new information

in this proceeding which would cause

us to reconsider this determination.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that, within the preserved

mushroom industry, there is an absence

of de jure government control over

exporting pricing and marketing

decisions of firms.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that certain enactments

of the PRC central government have not

been implemented uniformly among

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the

Department has determined that an

analysis of de facto control is critical in

determining whether respondents are,

in fact, subject to a degree of

governmental control which would

preclude the Department from assigning

separate rates.

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by, or subject to, the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

66706 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of its management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl

Alcohol.

CPF asserted the following: (1) It

establishes its own export prices; (2) it

negotiates contracts without guidance

from any governmental entities or

organizations; (3) it makes its own

personnel decisions; and (4) it retains

the proceeds of its export sales, uses

profits according to its business needs,

and has the authority to sell its assets

and obtain loans. Additionally, CPF’s

questionnaire responses indicate that

company-specific pricing during the

POR does not suggest coordination

among exporters. Furthermore, our

analysis of CPF’s questionnaire

responses reveals no other information

indicating government control. This

information supports a preliminary

finding that there is an absence of de

facto governmental control of CPF’s

export functions. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that CPF has

met the criteria for the application of a

separate rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by each respondent

to the United States were made at LTFV,

we compared the export price to the

normal value, as described in the

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

We used export price methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to unaffiliated

customers in the United States prior to

importation and constructed export

price methodology was not otherwise

indicated.

1. CPF, Gerber, and Raoping

We calculated export price based on

packed, free on board (FOB) foreign port

prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser

in the United States. Where appropriate,

we made deductions from the starting

price (gross unit price) for foreign

inland freight and foreign brokerage and

handling in the PRC, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act. Because

foreign inland freight and foreign

brokerage and handling fees were

provided by NME service providers or

paid for in a NME currency, we based

those charges on surrogate rates from

India (see ‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section

below). To value foreign inland trucking

charges and foreign brokerage and

handling expenses, we used November

1999 Indian freight companies’ and

freight forwarders’ price quotes,

respectively, obtained by the

Department in other antidumping duty

proceedings.

The petitioners claim that Raoping’s

sale is not a bona fide transaction due

to the circumstances surrounding the

sale which are described in the

Department’s September 29, 2000, sales

verification report. In prior cases the

Department has considered factors such

as timing, sale price, transportation

costs, other expenses borne by the

importer, and whether the merchandise

was resold by the importer at a loss to

determine whether a sale was a bona

fide transaction. See Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from

Romania, 63 FR 47232 (September 4,

1998) and American Silicon

Technologies v. United States, CIT Slip

Op. 00–84 (July 17, 2000).

While we verified that the price for

the sale under review is higher than that

of certain subsequent sales of the same

merchandise to the same customer,

there is no evidence on the record to

support a conclusion that the price for

the reviewed sale is not commercially

reasonable or was not a result of arm’slength bargaining, nor is there any

record evidence that the importer resold

the merchandise at a loss. Furthermore,

the transportation costs and other

expenses borne by the importer based

on the respondent’s reported terms of

sale are consistent with those incurred

by other importers of the subject

merchandise in this administrative

review and the LTFV investigation. In

addition, while the sale occurred shortly

before the end of the POR, the timing of

the transaction is not a basis in and of

itself to render the transaction not bona

fide. Therefore, absent evidence to the

contrary, we have determined Raoping’s

sale to be a bona fide transaction for

purposes of this review.

Normal Value

A. Non-Market Economy Status

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as a NME country.

None of the parties to this proceeding

has contested such treatment.

Accordingly, we calculated normal

value in accordance with section 773(c)

of the Act, which applies to NME

countries.

B. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more market

economy countries that: (1) are at a level

of economic development comparable to

that of the NME, and (2) are significant

producers of comparable merchandise.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka,

and the Philippines are countries

comparable to the PRC in terms of

overall economic development and are

significant producers of the subject

merchandise (see Memorandum dated

April 19, 2000). According to the

available information on the record, we

have determined that India meets the

statutory requirements for an

appropriate surrogate country for the

PRC. Accordingly, we have calculated

NV using Indian values for the PRC

producers’ factors of production, except,

as noted below, in certain instances

where an input was sourced from a

market economy and paid for in a

market economy currency. We have

obtained and relied upon PAI wherever

possible.

C. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by the

companies in the PRC which produced

mushrooms for the exporters which sold

mushrooms to the United States during

the POR. To calculate NV, the reported

unit factor quantities were multiplied by

publicly available Indian values, where

possible.

Where appropriate, we recalculated

the reported mushroom consumption

factor for purchased brined mushrooms

to an amount equivalent to consumption

of fresh mushrooms. Specifically, for

Gerber, we made this adjustment based

on the fresh mushroom consumption

used in its own production of brined

mushrooms. For Raoping, which only

consumed purchased brined

mushrooms in its production of the

subject merchandise, as facts available,

we applied an estimated adjustment

factor based on information obtained

from the U.S. industry. As in the LTFV

investigation, we made these

adjustments because we were unable to

identify a surrogate value for brined

mushrooms (see below).

We made the following additional

adjustments to the reported factors of

production:

China Processed

1. We adjusted all factors of

production reported by China

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66707

Processed’s supplier, Yu Xing Fruit and

Vegetable Development Co., Ltd. (Yu

Xing), to reflect a drained-weight basis,

using data in China Processed’s

questionnaire responses.

2. We recalculated Yu Xing’s reported

tin plate consumption (used to make

cans) by dividing total reported POR tin

plate consumption by the POR

preserved mushrooms production

amount. We made this adjustment in

order to reflect a drained-weight

mushroom basis, and to insure that all

tin plate consumed, including waste,

was accounted for.

Gerber

1. We incorporated Gerber’s preverification revisions and our

verification findings.

2. We added an additional amount of

electricity consumption to account for

production-related electricity not

included in Gerber’s factor reporting,

based on our verification findings. See

Memorandum entitled Gerber

Preliminary Results Margin Calculation,

dated October 31, 2000.

Raoping reported that it purchased

cans from a market-economy supplier (i.e.,

a Hong Kong trading company) and paid

for them in U.S. dollars. The petitioners

point out that Raoping did not

demonstrate that the cans were actually

manufactured in a market economy.

However, Raoping did show that the

material was obtained from a marketeconomy supplier and that it paid for

the material in a market-economy

currency. Further, we found no

evidence at verification to indicate that

the cans were not actually produced in

a market economy. Accordingly, we

have valued Raoping’s consumption of

cans and lids based on the U.S. dollar

prices it paid for them to the Hong Kong

supplier. As appropriate, for these

imported materials, we calculated PRC

brokerage and inland freight from the

port to the factory using surrogate rates

from India. We valued the remaining

factors using PAI from India, except

where noted below. Where a producer

did not report the distance between the

material supplier and the factory, as

facts available, we used either the

distance to the nearest seaport (if an

import value was used as the surrogate

value for the factor) or the farthest

distance reported for a supplier of any

agricultural or chemical input, as

appropriate.

The selection of the surrogate values

applied in this determination was based

on the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. Wherever

possible and appropriate, we used nonproducer specific prices in accordance

with the preamble to the Department’s

regulations at 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May

19, 1997). As appropriate, we adjusted

input prices to reflect delivered values.

For those values not contemporaneous

with the POR and quoted in a foreign

currency, we adjusted for inflation using

wholesale price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics. A

complete analysis of the surrogate

values may be found in the Preliminary

Determination Valuation Memorandum

from the Team to the File (Preliminary

Determination Valuation

Memorandum), dated October 31, 2000.

We valued the major material inputs

used in the production of the subject

merchandise using the following

sources. For fresh and brined

mushrooms, we used the simple average

of the fresh mushrooms prices quoted in

the Indian publication The Economic

Times during the POR. We valued cans

for Gerber using the weighted-average

per-piece value derived from the notes

to the Indian producer Agro Dutch

Industries, Ltd.’’s 1998–1999 and 1999–

2000 financial statements. We valued

tin plate for CPF using the Commodity

Trade Statistics published by the United

Nations Statistics Division (United

Nations Statistics).

For other raw materials and packing

materials, such as growing inputs,

chemicals, and cardboard cartons, we

derived unit values from Indian

preserved mushroom producers’

financial statements, the Monthly Trade

Statistics of Foreign Trade of India,

Volume II—Imports (Indian Import

Statistics), or the Indian publication

Chemical Weekly. 

We valued calcium super phosphate

and calcium phosphate using the U.S.

price quoted in the U.S. publication

Chemical Marketing Reporter because it

was the only information on the record

for these inputs.

For certain materials reportedly

consumed in small quantities, such as

cotton wadding, HCHO, and single

super phosphate, we were unable to

identify appropriate surrogate values.

Therefore, we have not included these

factors in our preliminary results

normal value calculation.

Raoping claimed that it resold scrap

can material but failed to provide

documentation at verification to

demonstrate that the scrap material was

actually resold. Therefore, we have not

made an offset deduction to the

surrogate cost of production for can

scrap because Raoping has not met the

burden under 19 CFR 351.401(b) to

demonstrate its entitlement to the offset.

We valued labor based on a

regression-based wage rate in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value electricity, we used the

average rupees/kilowatt hour derived

from four Indian preserved-mushroom

producing companies’ annual reports

for April 1998 through March 1999. In

certain recent cases (e.g., Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review of Manganese

Metal from the People’s Republic of

China, 65 FR 30067, 30067–8 (May 10,

2000)), the Department has used

publicly available information based on

an aggregate of Indian state and regional

electricity rates in order to fulfill the

regulatory preference for valuing

electricity. In the instant review, we

preliminarily determined it appropriate

to use an alternative methodology based

on the contemporaneity and specificity

of the data employed as well as other

factors. See Preliminary Determination

Valuation Memorandum for further

discussion. We based the value of coal

on the average of the rupees/metric ton

rate of ‘‘Coal (for steam raising)’’ from

Polychem, Ltd.’’s annual report for

April 1998 through March 1999 and the

United Nations Statistics. We did not

value water separately because it

appeared to be included in factory

overhead.

We based our calculation of factory

overhead (including water), SG&A

expenses, and profit on the simple

average of the corresponding data of

three Indian preserved mushroom

producers whose production and sales

activity is mostly preserved mushrooms

and other food products who were

profitable during the POR.

To value truck freight rates, we used

November 1999 Indian freight

companies’ price quotes discussed in

the ‘‘Export Price’’ section above. With

regard to rail freight, we based our

calculation on information from the

Indian Railway Conference Association.

The United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s)

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United

States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (CAFC 1997)

requires that we revise our calculation

of source-to-factory surrogate freight for

those material inputs that are based on

CIF import values in the surrogate

country. Therefore, we have added to

CIF surrogate values from India a

surrogate freight cost using the shorter

of the reported distances from either the

closest PRC port to the factory or from

the domestic supplier to the factory on

an import-specific basis.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margins for

the August 5, 1998, through January 31,

2000 POR are as follows:

66708 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin

percent

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. .... 99.69

China Processed Food Import &

Export Co. ................................... 0.00

Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. .... 42.77

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties to this

proceeding within five days of the

publication date of this notice. See 19

CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party

may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If

requested, a hearing will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. See 19

CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from

interested parties and rebuttal briefs,

limited to the issues raised in the

respective case briefs, may be submitted

not later than 30 days and 35 days,

respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Parties are

also encouraged to provide a summary

of the arguments not to exceed five

pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final

results of these administrative reviews,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any written briefs or at

the hearing, if held, not later than 120

days after the date of publication of this

notice.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1) The party’s name, address, and

telephone number; (2) the number of

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be

discussed.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may

submit additional publicly available

information to value the factors of

production for the final results of these

reviews until 20 days after publication

of these results, unless a written request

for an extension is received and granted.

Assessment Rates

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appropriate

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service upon completion of

these reviews. The final results of these

reviews shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by the

final results of these reviews and for

future deposits of estimated duties.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we

will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries for any importer for

whom the assessment rate is de minimis

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). For

assessment purposes, we intend to

calculate entry-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rates (for CPF and Raoping

whose sale and entry occurred in

different PORs) or importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates (for

Gerber) based on the ratio of the total

amount of the dumping margins

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of those same sales.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during these

review periods. 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash 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 the final results of

these administrative and new shipper

reviews, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for each reviewed company will be

that established in the final results of

these reviews, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above that have

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

the cash deposit rate for all other PRC

manufacturers or exporters will

continue to be 198.63 percent, the

‘‘PRC-Wide’’ rate made effective by the

LTFV investigation; and (4) for all nonPRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be 198.63 percent, the

‘‘PRC-Wide’’ rate made effective by the

LTFV investigation. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

These administrative and new shipper

reviews and notice are published in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28568 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–809; A–351–826; A–428–820; A–

475–814]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Reviews: Seamless Pipe From

Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of final results of

expedited sunset reviews: seamless pipe

from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and

Italy

SUMMARY: On July 3, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil,

Germany, and Italy (65 FR 41053),

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On

the basis of notices of intent to

participate and adequate substantive

responses filed on behalf of U.S. Steel

Group, a unit of USX Corporation and

Vision Metals, Inc., domestic interested

parties, and inadequate response (in the

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany cases,

no response) from respondent interested

parties, the Department determined to

conduct expedited reviews. As a result

of these reviews, the Department finds

that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the levels indicated in the Final

Results of Reviews section of this

notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky J. Hagen or James P. Maeder, Jr.,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of