[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1318-1319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-201-601]


Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 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: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh 
cut flowers from Mexico. This review was initiated in response to 
requests by respondents, Rancho del Pacifico (Pacifico) and Rancho 
Guacatay (Guacatay). Although we initiated a review of both producers, 
we are terminating the review with respect to Guacatay because the 
respondent timely withdrew its request for review. This review covers 
one producer/exporter and entries of the subject merchandise into the 
United States during the period April 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made 
below normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on 
these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments are requested to 
submit with each comment (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Singer or Leon McNeill, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, 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 are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 23, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Mexico (52 
FR 13491).
    On April 30, 1996, Pacifico and Guacatay requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review in accordance with 
Sec. 353.22 (a)(1) of the Department's regulations. Pacifico and 
Guacatay also requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty 
order as it pertains to them upon completion of the review. We 
published a notice of initiation on May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26518), 
covering Pacifico and Guacatay, and the period April 1, 1995 through 
March 31, 1996. On July 2, 1996, Guacatay timely withdrew its request 
for review. Because there were no other requests for review for 
Guacatay from any other interested party, the Department is now 
terminating this review in part in accordance with Sec. 353.22(a)(5). 
We shall instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate Guacatay's 
entries for this period at the rates in effect at the time of entry. 
Because Guacatay is a previously reviewed company, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate currently in effect.
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are certain fresh cut flowers, 
defined as standard carnations, standard chrysanthemums, and pompon 
chrysanthemums. During the period of review, such merchandise was 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) items 0603.10.7010 (pompon chrysanthemums), 0603.10.7020 
(standard chrysanthemums), and 0603.10.7030 (standard carnations). The 
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes 
only. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers sales of the subject merchandise entered into 
the United States during the period April 1, 1995 through March 31, 
1996.

Determination Not To Revoke

    On April 30, 1996, Pacifico requested revocation of the antidumping 
order, pursuant to Sec. 353.222(d) of the Department's proposed 
regulations. According to Sec. 351.222(d) of the proposed regulations, 
the Department need not conduct a review of the second year of the 
three-year period of sales at not less than fair value (LTFV) required 
for revocation. Because the proposed regulations have not been issued 
as final regulations, the current regulations remain in effect.
    Under Sec. 353.25(a)(2)(i) of the Department's current regulations, 
the Department may revoke an order if one or more producers or 
resellers covered by the order have sold subject merchandise at not 
less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years. Although 
Pacifico was a respondent in the administrative reviews of the 1992/
1993 POR and 1993/1994 POR, earning zero margins in both reviews, 
Pacifico did not participate in the administrative review of the 1994/
1995 POR. See 61 FR 28166 (June 4, 1996). Therefore, the Department 
finds Pacifico ineligible for revocation at this time.

Duty Absorption

    On June 21, 1996, the petitioner requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by Pacifico 
during the period of review (POR) pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the 
Act. Section 751 (a)(4) provides for the Department, if requested, to 
determine, during an administrative review initiated two years or four 
years after publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have 
been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order, 
if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an 
importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter. 
Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Act by the URAA. The Department's 
interim regulations do not address this provision of the Act.
    For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the 
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995,

[[Page 1319]]

section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping 
regulations provides that the Department will make a duty absorption 
determination, if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 
1996 or 1998. See 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 1996). The preamble to 
the proposed antidumping regulations explains that reviews initiated in 
1996 will be considered initiated in the second year and reviews in 
1998 will be considered initiated in the fourth year. Id. at 7317. 
Although these proposed antidumping regulations are not yet binding 
upon the Department, they do constitute a public statement of how the 
Department expects to proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the 
Act. This approach assures that interested parties will have the 
opportunity to request a duty absorption determination prior to the 
time for sunset review of the order under section 751(c). Because the 
order on certain fresh cut flowers from Mexico has been in effect since 
1987, this is a transition order. Therefore, based on the policy stated 
above, the Department will first consider a request for an absorption 
determination during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review 
initiated in 1996, we are making a duty-absorption determination as 
part of this segment of the proceeding.
    The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the 
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. In this case, Pacifico is itself the importer, i.e., the 
exporter and the importer are the same entity; therefore, 751(a)(4) is 
applicable. We have preliminarily determined that there is no dumping 
margin on any of Pacifico's U.S. sales during the POR. We, therefore, 
preliminarily find that antidumping duties have not been absorbed by 
Pacifico on its U.S. sales.

United States Price

    In calculating United States Price (USP), we used constructed 
export price (CEP), in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) 
of the Act, because Pacifico's sales to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser occurred after importation into the United States. As in the 
original LTFV investigation and in all prior administrative reviews, 
all United States prices were weight-averaged on a monthly basis to 
account for perishability of the product. CEP was based on the packed 
F.O.B. prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser after importation 
into the United States.
    Where appropriate, we made deductions from CEP for U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. and Mexican brokerage and handling charges, and for 
credit expenses incurred on sales in the United States. Finally, we 
made an adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to these expenses 
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. No other adjustments 
were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

    In calculating NV, we used home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers, as defined in section 773 of the Act. In order to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Pacifico's 
volume of home market sales of the subject merchandise to the volume of 
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Pacifico's aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating 
NV for Pacifico.
    Home market price was based on the F.O.B. farm gate unit price of 
subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. 
No adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 1995 through March 31, 
1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rancho del Pacifico..........................................       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 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 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 no later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with 
their comments (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of 
the comment. The Department will publish a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of certain fresh cut flowers from Mexico entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751 (a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in 
the final results of this review;
    (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not 
covered in these reviews but covered in the original LTFV investigation 
or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this or 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; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
the merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 18.20 percent, the rate 
established in the LTFV investigation. See 52 FR 6361 (March 3, 1987).
    These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under Sec. 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 in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 
Sec. 353.22 and Sec. 353.25.

    Dated: December 31, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-506 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P