16772 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–301–602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia: Preliminary Results and

Partial Rescission 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

interested parties, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

fresh cut flowers from Colombia for the

period March 1, 1995 through February

29, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value (NV) by various

companies subject to this review. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the export price (EP)

or constructed export price (CEP) and

the NV. We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue;

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The deadlines for submission

of argument are listed at the end of this

notice. All memoranda referred to in

this notice can be found in the public

reading room, located in the Central

Records Unit, room B–099 of the main

Department of Commerce building.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carole Showers or Roy A. Malmrose,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–3217 or (202) 482–

5414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 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).

Background

On March 4, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Colombia. See 61 FR

8238. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c), on April 22, 1996, we

initiated an administrative review of

this order. See 61 FR 17685. On August

21, 1996, in accordance with section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.213(h)(2), we extended the deadline

for these preliminary results until

March 31, 1997. See 61 FR 43229. From

February 17 through March 1, 1997, we

verified the responses of seven

respondents. The Department has

conducted this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of certain fresh cut flowers

from Colombia (standard carnations,

miniature (spray) carnations, standard

chrysanthemums and pompon

chrysanthemums). These products are

currently classifiable under item

numbers 0603.10.30.00, 0603.10.70.10,

0603.10.70.20, and 0603.10.70.30 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

The period of review is March 1, 1995

through February 29, 1996.

In this administrative review, 473

companies were either named in the

initiation notice or were affiliated with

a company named in the initiation

notice. We have separated these

companies into the following categories:

companies providing full responses

(selected and non-selected); companies

claiming they had no shipments during

the POR; companies claiming they were

bankrupt without responding further;

companies that did not respond at all or

that submitted a response after the

deadline for submission of

questionnaire responses; companies to

which we were unable to deliver the

questionnaire (i.e., unlocatable

companies); and companies for which

we are rescinding this review.

Respondent Selection

Unlike past administrative reviews of

this order, this one is being conducted

under statutorily mandated deadlines.

On September 20, 1996, the Department

issued a memorandum proposing to

limit the number of exporters and

producers examined in this review. The

memorandum also proposed specific

sampling methodologies. The

Department invited interested parties to

comment on both the proposal to limit

the number of exporters and producers

and the specific sampling

methodologies described in the

memorandum. Comments were

submitted by the Floral Trade Council,

the Asociacion Colombiana de

Exportadores de Flores (‘‘Asocolflores’’),

the HOSA Group, and the Caicedo

Group. After considering these

comments, on November 21, 1996, the

Department decided to limit the number

of respondents examined.

Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides

the Department with the authority to

determine margins by limiting its

examination to a statistically valid

sample of exporters or the largest

volume of the subject merchandise that

can reasonably be examined. This

subparagraph is formulated as an

exception to the general rule that each

company for which a review is

requested will be individually examined

and receive a calculated margin. Since

the resources available to the

Department are limited, we found it

administrably necessary to restrict the

number of respondents selected for

examination in order to conduct

thorough and accurate analyses of

responses to our questionnaires and

other relevant issues within the

statutory deadlines. Restricting the

number of respondents for examination

is consistent with other past cases

involving large numbers of potential

respondents, statutory deadlines and

limited resources. See, for example,

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Pasta from Italy,

61 FR 1344 (January 19, 1996) and

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and

Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic

of China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10,

1996).

Therefore, given the large number of

producers and/or exporters involved in

the review and the Department’s limited

resources, the Department limited its

examination to the 13 groups of

exporters and producers accounting for

the largest volume of flowers, in

accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B)

of the Act. These exporters accounted

for approximately 50 percent by volume

of the exports made during the POR by

the companies and groups of companies

that responded to our questionnaire.

These 13 respondents are the Agrodex

Group (‘‘Agrodex’’); Caicedo Group

(‘‘Caicedo’’); Claveles Colombianos
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16773

Group (‘‘Clavecol’’); Cultivos Miramonte

Group (‘‘Cultivos Miramonte’’);

Floraterra Group (‘‘Floraterra’’); Flores

Colon, Ltda (‘‘Flores Colon’’); Florex

Group (‘‘Florex’’); Guacatay Group

(‘‘Guacatay’’); HOSA Group (‘‘HOSA’’);

Maxima Farms Group (‘‘Maxima

Farms’’); Queens Flowers Group

(‘‘Queens’’); Tinzuque Group

(‘‘Tinzuque’’); and Tuchany Group

(‘‘Tuchany’’). For further discussion on

the issues of limiting the number of

respondents and the selection of

respondents, see the Memorandum from

Team to Barbara R. Stafford, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration, dated November 21,

1996.

Affiliated Companies

During the course of this review, we

examined closely the relationships

between the selected respondents and

other producers/exporters listed in our

notice of initiation. Based on this

examination, we concluded that one of

Guacatay’s importers was affiliated.

Guacatay complied with our request to

report sales by this importer as CEP

sales.

In addition to our examination,

several respondents filed responses on

behalf of affiliated companies which

were either not listed in the initiation

notice, or were listed as independent

companies in the initiation notice. On

May 10, 1996, Asocolflores informed us

that ‘‘Caico’’ was the same as the

Caicedo Group. Therefore, while

CAICO, the Caico Group and the

Caicedo Group, are listed separately in

our initiation notice, we are treating

them as part of the same group. On

October 1, 1996, respondent HOSA

identified the five companies included

in the HOSA Group. One of these

companies, Innovacion Andina S.A.,

had been listed separately in our

initiation. We are now listing it solely

under the HOSA Group. In addition,

both Agrodex and Queens submitted

responses on behalf of more companies

than were named in the initiation

notice. We have included those

companies in their respective groups.

With respect to the respondents other

than the 13 selected respondents, we

received the following information on

affiliation. On May 10, 1996,

respondents informed us that

‘‘Agromonte Ltda’’ was the same

company as ‘‘Flores Agromonte.’’

Therefore, we have listed this company

under its appropriate name, Flores

Agromonte. In our initiation, we listed

Floricola la Ramada Ltda. twice, once

under the Santa Rosa Group and once

by itself. Based on information received

by respondents on July 19, 1996, we

have now listed it only one time, under

the Santa Rosa Group. Also, Agricola

Benilda Ltda was mentioned twice in

our initiation. It now appears only

under the Aga Group. On August 5,

1996, Asocolflores informed us that

Flores la Union/Santana is actually

simply ‘‘Santana’’ and is a farm of

Flores la Union Gomez Arago & Cia.

Therefore, we are treating Santana as

part of the Flores la Union Gomez Arago

& Cia Group. Finally, the Bojaca Group,

Floralex Group, Funza Group and

Soagro Group responded on behalf of

more affiliated companies than were

named in the initiation notice. The

companies affiliated with these groups

are now listed as reported by the

respondents.

Non-Selected Respondents

This is the first administrative review

of any antidumping order in which the

Department reviewed only the largest

exporters, pursuant to section

777A(c)(2) of the Act. When, as in this

case, only the largest exporters are

selected and each given an individually

calculated margin, there remain a

number of exporters for whom an

individual margin cannot be calculated.

The statute is silent on how the margins

should be calculated for these remaining

non-selected respondents.

In this ninth review, we face the

unusual situation of having requested

full responses from all firms prior to our

decision to review only the largest. We

have assigned the non-selected,

cooperative respondents a weightedaverage margin based on the calculated

margins of selected respondents,

excluding any de minimis margins and

margins based on facts available. Given

the unique circumstances of this case,

using the weighted-average margin is

most consistent with the general

structure of the statute. Further,

although this is clearly not a nonmarket

economy case, we have faced analogous

situations in certain NME investigations

where we were unable to examine all of

the respondents. The methodology

employed here is the same as that which

we have used in those NME

investigations. See, e.g., Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Honey from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 14725 (March

20, 1995) and Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake

Rotors from the People’s Republic of

China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10, 1996).

The firms in question are listed under

‘‘Non-Selected Respondents’’ in the

Preliminary Results of Review section

below.

No Shipments

We received responses from 64 firms

indicating that they did not ship during

the POR. We reviewed information from

Customs listing all companies who had

entries of subject merchandise during

the POR. Since 40 of the companies that

stated they had no shipments also did

not appear on Customs data as having

entries during the POR, we

preliminarily determine that they did

not ship during the POR. Consistent

with our practice in previous reviews of

this order, for those companies that did

not ship during the POR which had

previously been reviewed or

investigated, their cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recently

reviewed period. For those companies

that did not ship during the POR and

which had not been previously

reviewed or investigated, their cash

deposit rate will be the ‘‘all-others’’ rate.

These 40 firms are listed under ‘‘No

Shipments’’ in the Preliminary Results

of Review section below. For those 24

companies which stated that they had

not shipped during the POR, but which

did appear on the Customs data as

having entries during the POR, we

preliminarily determine that these

companies have failed to cooperate with

the proceeding. Therefore, we are

applying an adverse facts available rate

of 76.60 percent to these companies. We

will, however, seek further information

from these respondents and from

Customs to determine whether these

entries during the POR actually related

to sales outside of the POR. These 24

companies are included under ‘‘NonRespondents’’ in the Preliminary Results

of Review section below.

Unlocatable Companies

We initiated reviews for 116 firms

which could not be located in spite of

our requests for assistance from such

diverse sources as the Floral Trade

Council (‘‘FTC’’), Asocolflores, the

American Embassy in Bogota, and the

U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, we

were unable to conduct administrative

reviews for these firms. Consistent with

our practice in past administrative

reviews of this order, we will assess

duties on these firms in the following

manner. For those unlocatable

companies that were examined in a

previous review, we will assess duties

based on their company-specific rate

from the most recent review. If we have

not previously conducted a review of an

unlocatable company, duties equal to

the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 3.53 percent from

the Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV)

investigation will be assessed. The firms
16774 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

in question are listed under

‘‘Unlocatable’’ in the Preliminary

Results of Review section below.

Rescissions

Subsequent to the publication of our

initiation notice, we received timely

withdrawals of review requests from

Agricola La Montana and My Flowers.

Because there were no other requests for

review for these companies from any

other interested parties, we are

rescinding this review with respect to

these two companies in accordance with

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In addition, we

received information on the record that

Flower Factory, Hill Crest Gardens,

Sunbelt Florals, and Eldorado Trading

Corp were importers and not producers/

exporters. Consequently, we are

terminating the review with respect to

these four firms.

Request To Preserve Revocation

Eligibility

Under the current regulations, as

amended by the interim regulations

published in the Federal Register on

May 11, 1995, the Department may

revoke an order in part if: (1) One or

more producers or resellers covered by

the order have sold the merchandise at

not less than foreign market value for a

period of at least three consecutive

years; (2) it is not likely that those

persons will in the future sell the

merchandise at less than foreign market

value; and (3) the producers or resellers

agree in writing to their immediate

reinstatement in the order if the

Department determines, subsequent to

their revocation, that they have sold

subject merchandise at less than foreign

market value. See 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2).

Since all requests for review in the

eighth review period were withdrawn,

the ninth review can only be the first of

any three consecutive years. On

November 27, 1996, seven producers/

exporters of subject merchandise, who

were not among the 13 selected,

requested that they be included in this

review so as to preserve their eligibility

for possible revocation in the eleventh

review.

The statute, at section 751(d)(1), states

that Commerce ‘‘may revoke, in whole

or in part, a countervailing or

antidumping duty order,’’ (emphasis

added). Therefore, the Department is

under no obligation to provide for the

possibility of revocation to these or any

companies under the order. However,

we recognize that the request by the

seven respondents to preserve their

revocation eligibility presents certain

fundamental equity considerations.

While we are unable to include these

seven producers/exporters in this

review, we intend to address their

concerns. Therefore, we are considering

several options concerning the

appropriate way to allow for the

possibility of future partial revocations

in this order, while taking into account

the Department’s limited resources and

the requirement that a company be

verified in order to be revoked. Among

others, we are considering the following

three options. First, we could allow

companies to make the claim,

retrospectively, that they have not

dumped for the past three years in the

form of a ‘‘changed circumstances’’

review in the eleventh review (i.e., the

first review in which revocations will be

possible under this order). Second, we

could allow a group of companies to

claim prospectively that they will have

zero or de minimis margins for the next

three years and examine a random

sample of each such group in each of

the next reviews (i.e., beginning in the

tenth review). Finally, we could allow a

group of companies to claim

prospectively that they will have zero or

de minimis margins for the next three

years and examine certain elements of

each respondent’s data (rather than a

random sample of all respondents). We

invite parties to comment on these

options, as well as any others that take

into account the above considerations.

For further discussion on this issue, see

Memorandum from Team to Robert S.

LaRussa, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated February

21, 1997.

Verification

Section 782(i) of the Act requires the

Department to verify all information

relied upon in making a final

determination in a review under section

751(a), if no verification was made

during the two immediately preceding

reviews. Therefore, we verified only

those companies that were not verified

in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

42833 (August 19, 1996) (‘‘Flowers

1991–94’’). As provided in section

782(i)(3)(B) of the Act, we verified

information provided by the following

respondents, using standard verification

procedures, including on-site

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information: Caicedo, Clavecol,

Floraterra, Maxima Farms, Flores Colon,

Queens, and Tuchany.

Duty Absorption

On March 29, 1996, the petitioner

requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed by respondents

during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the

Act provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine, during an

administrative review initiated two 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,

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

initiated in 1998 will be considered

initiated in the fourth year. Id. at 7308,

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

amended statute. This approach assures

that interested parties will have the

opportunity to request a duty absorption

determination on entries for which the

second and fourth years following an

order have already passed, prior to the

time for sunset review of the order

under section 751(c). Because the order

on certain fresh cut flowers from

Colombia has been in effect since 1986,

this is a transition order. Consequently,

based on the policy stated above, it is

appropriate for the Department to

examine duty absorption in this ninth

review, which was initiated in 1996.

The statute, at section 751(a)(4),

provides that duty absorption may occur

if the subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an affiliated

importer. Of the selected respondents,

the following have affiliated importers:

Agrodex, Caicedo, Clavecol, Cultivos

Miramonte, Floraterra, Florex, Guacatay,

HOSA, Maxima Farms, Queens and

Tuchany. Furthermore, we have

preliminarily determined that there are

dumping margins for the following

companies with respect to the

percentages of their U.S. sales by

quantity indicated below:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16775

Name of company Percentage of U.S. affiliated importer sales with margin

Agrodex ................................................................................................ 13.71

Caicedo ................................................................................................ 100

Clavecol ............................................................................................... 19.66

Cultivos Miramonte .............................................................................. 24.71

Floraterra .............................................................................................. 24.32

Florex ................................................................................................... 13.06

Guacatay .............................................................................................. 27.98

HOSA ................................................................................................... 21.73

Maxima Farms ..................................................................................... 31.37

Queens ................................................................................................ 18.97

Tuchany ............................................................................................... 22.33

In the case of Caicedo, we are unable

to calculate a margin based on its

response and have therefore determined

its dumping margin entirely on the basis

of facts available. In such cases, we

assume duty absorption on all sales.

With respect to those companies (with

affiliated importers) whose margins are

not determined based on facts available,

we presume that the duties will be

absorbed for those sales which were

dumped, unless there is evidence (e.g.,

an agreement between the affiliated

importer and the unaffiliated purchaser)

that the unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States will pay the full duty

ultimately assessed on the subject

merchandise. Although in this case

certain companies have provided

invoices which separately list an

amount for estimated antidumping

duties which they are charging their

unaffiliated purchasers, none of these

companies has presented evidence of

agreements with unaffiliated purchasers

to pay ultimately assessed antidumping

duties. Under these circumstances,

therefore, we preliminarily find that the

antidumping duties have been absorbed

by the above-listed firms on the

percentage of U.S. sales indicated.

Use of Facts Available

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act states that

if necessary information is not available

on the record, the Department ‘‘shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’ Section 782(e) of the Act provides

that the Department shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary

to the determination but does not meet

all the applicable requirements

established by the Department if: (1)

The information is submitted by the

deadline established for its submission;

(2) the information can be verified; (3)

the information is not so incomplete

that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

reaching the applicable determination;

(4) the interested party has

demonstrated that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the information

and meeting the requirements

established by the Department with

respect to the information; and (5) the

information can be used without undue

difficulties. Accordingly, in using the

facts available, the Department may

disregard information submitted by a

respondent if any of the five criteria has

not been met.

In circumstances where the

Department determines that the use of

facts available is appropriate, the

Department must then determine

whether an adverse inference is

warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, where the Department

‘‘finds that an interested party has failed

to cooperate by not acting to the best of

its ability to comply with a request for

information,’’ the Department ‘‘may use

an inference that is adverse to the

interests of that party in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available.’’

For purposes of this review, certain

companies received the Department’s

initial questionnaire, but either failed to

respond entirely or responded after the

deadline for submission without

providing an explanation.

Consequently, we must apply facts

available. Further, as we determine that

their failure to respond either entirely or

in a timely fashion constitutes a failure

to cooperate by not acting to the best of

their ability, we will apply an adverse

inference in selecting from the facts

otherwise available. For all these

companies, we have applied as adverse

facts available the highest rate for any

company from this or any prior segment

of this proceeding. This rate is 76.60

percent. The companies in question are

listed under ‘‘Non-Respondents’’ in the

Preliminary Results of Review section

below.

We are also applying an adverse facts

available rate to exports made by the

Oro Verde Group, consisting of

Inversiones Miraflores S.A. and

Inversiones Oro Verde S.A. The group

responded to our original questionnaire

only by stating that it did have small

shipments during the POR and that it

was on the verge of bankruptcy. Our

supplemental questionnaire was

returned as undeliverable. We find that

this group did not fully respond to our

questionnaire. Therefore, consistent

with our treatment of bankrupt

companies in Flowers 1991–94 and our

preliminary determination that the

company did not cooperate to the best

of its ability, we are applying to the Oro

Verde Group a rate of 7.85 percent

which is the higher of the highest rate

ever applied to the group, or the highest

rate calculated for any other company in

this review. See Memorandum from

Team to Richard W. Moreland, Acting

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration, dated March 7, 1997.

Finally, we are applying an adverse

facts available rate to one selected

respondent, Caicedo. Although Caicedo

provided information we requested

which was necessary for our analysis,

the majority of the information could

not be verified as required by section

782(i) of the Act. Caicedo was not

adequately prepared for our verification

of its response, although it had received

the verification outline well in advance

of the verification. While certain of the

preselected sales were tied to company

records, the majority of other items on

the sales verification agenda did not. In

collecting information on certain items

requested, the company’s ‘‘support

documentation’’ did not tie to either the

response or the company’s internal

records. Notably, Caicedo was unable to

produce grower’s reports (the main

source document for reporting sales

information) for several of the customers

we chose to review. In attempting to

verify its response we learned that

Caicedo had incorrectly reported most

of its sales data. For example,

classification of sales as EP or CEP had

not been based on the type of sales (i.e.,

fixed-price or consignment, as required

by the questionnaire), but on where the

customer made payment (i.e., to its

related importer in Miami or to Caicedo

in Bogota). In addition, Caicedo did not

report the date of sale appropriately,

using the date that payment was
16776 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

received instead of the date the invoice

was issued. The company also misreported international freight, brokerage

and handling, and days outstanding for

numerous customers. Furthermore,

while the verification of Caicedo’s cost

data was more successful, we learned of

several errors in its reporting of costs.

The most significant error, Caicedo’s

failure to include an inflation

adjustment to its amortized costs,

prevents us from calculating a normal

value for Caicedo because of lack of

information on the record.

Despite a question posed in a

supplemental questionnaire concerning

confusing or contradictory information

on the classification of EP and CEP

sales, and a statement at the beginning

of the Miami verification that there

seemed to be significant omissions in

the field of international freight,

Caicedo did not correct the errors in its

sales response. The errors in the cost

response were undetectable prior to

verification. Moreover, despite

extensive efforts during verification,

neither the Department nor the

company was able to correct the vast

majority of these errors.

Although information submitted by

Caicedo’s affiliated importer, Southern

Rainbow Corporation, was verified, we

are unable to use it because we find that

the totality of information submitted by

Caicedo was so incomplete that it

cannot serve as a reliable basis for

determining any margin for Caicedo.

Therefore, in accordance with section

782(e)(3) of the statute, we are declining

to consider the information submitted

by Caicedo.

The Department has used facts

available where a company has failed

verification despite our attempts to

verify. See e.g., Final Results:

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et al., 62 FR 2081

(January 15, 1997) (‘‘AFBs VI ’’);

Preliminary Results: Extruded Rubber

Thread from Malaysia, 61 FR 65019

(December 10, 1996); Preliminary

Results: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from Sweden, 61 FR 51898

(October 4, 1996). Moreover, in AFBs VI,

we concluded that a respondent did not

act to the best of its ability when it was

an experienced respondent in reviews of

the order and when the questionnaire

was not vague on the information

requested. We reasoned that, in these

circumstances, the respondent could

reasonably be expected to know which

types of essential data we request in

each review, and to be conversant with

the form and manner in which we

require submission of the data. See 62

FR 2081, 2090.

Like the situation described in AFBs

VI, Caicedo is a large, sophisticated

corporation that has participated in

previous reviews of this order. The

questionnaire was explicit in its

instructions on the classification of EP

and CEP customers, date of sale and

amortization of costs. Furthermore, the

inflation adjustment to amortization has

been a standard element in previous

reviews of this order and Caicedo could

reasonably be expected to know how to

report its costs. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine that application

of adverse facts available is warranted as

Caicedo failed to cooperate by acting to

the best of its ability. Consequently, we

are assigning Caicedo a rate of 25.58

percent, the highest rate ever applied to

Caicedo in any portion of this

proceeding. This rate was applied to

Flores del Cauca (one of the farms of

Caicedo). Consistent with the logic

articulated in AFBs VI, we determine

that this rate is sufficiently adverse to

encourage full cooperation in future

segments of the proceeding by ensuring

that Caicedo does not benefit from its

failure to cooperate fully (Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’), at 200).

Because the facts available

information which we are using in this

review constitutes secondary

information, we are required under

section 776(c) of the Act to corroborate,

to the extent practicable, the facts

available from independent sources

reasonably at our disposal. The SAA

provides that ‘‘corroborate’’ means

simply that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value. (SAA, at

id.) To corroborate the secondary

information, the Department will, to the

extent practicable, examine the

reliability and relevance of the

information to be used. However, unlike

other types of information, such as

input costs or selling expenses, there are

no independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

margins is administrative

determinations and reviews. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

relies upon a calculated dumping

margin from a prior segment of the

proceeding as facts available, the

Department can normally be satisfied

that the information has probative value

and that it has complied with the

corroboration requirements of section

776(i) of the Act. See AFBs VI, at 2087.

Fair Value Comparisons

Under the ‘‘United States Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below, we

have included certain company-specific

issues. For further discussion of these

issues, See Memorandum from Team to

Richard W. Moreland, Acting Deputy for

Import Administration, dated March 12,

1997.

United States Price

Consistent with section 777A(d)(2) of

the Act and Flowers 1991–94, we

determined that it was appropriate to

average U.S. prices on a monthly basis

in order (1) to use actual price

information that is often available only

on a monthly basis, (2) to account for

large sales volumes, and (3) to account

for perishable product pricing practices.

For the price to the United States, we

used export price (EP) or constructed

export price (CEP) as defined in sections

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

appropriate. CEP was used for

consignment sales through unaffiliated

U.S. consignees and sales (consignment

or otherwise) made through affiliated

importers.

We calculated EP based on the packed

price, consisting of invoice price plus

certain additional revenue, e.g., box

charges and antidumping duties paid,

(either f.o.b. Bogota, c.i.f. Miami or c.i.f.

Chicago) to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for discounts and rebates, foreign inland

freight, international (air) freight,

brokerage and handling, U.S. customs

fees, and return credits.

For sales made on consignment, CEP

was calculated based on the packed

price consisting of invoice price plus

certain additional revenue, e.g., box

charges and antidumping duties paid,

charged by the consignee. For sales

made through affiliated parties, CEP was

based on the packed price, consisting of

invoice price plus certain additional

revenue, e.g., box charges and

antidumping duties paid, to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United

States. We made adjustments to these

prices, where appropriate, for box

charges, discounts and rebates, foreign

inland freight, international (air) freight,

brokerage and handling, U.S. customs

fees, direct selling expenses (credit

expense and contributions to the

Colombian Flower Council) relating to

commercial activity in the United

States, return credits, royalties and

indirect selling expenses incurred in the

home market that related to commercial

activity in the United States. Finally,

consistent with our practice in Roses

from Colombia, 60 FR 6980 (February 6,

1995), we made adjustments for either

commissions paid to unrelated U.S.

consignees or the indirect U.S. selling

expenses of related consignees.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, the price was further reduced by an

amount for profit to arrive at the CEP.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16777

The CEP profit rate was calculated using

the expenses incurred by the responding

companies on their sales of the subject

merchandise in the United States and of

the like product in the home market (for

those companies that had home market

sales) and the profit associated with

those sales.

Tuchany

We were unable to verify the interest

rates on Tuchany’s reported short-term

U.S. loans during the POR; therefore, we

were unable to verify Tuchany’s

reported U.S. interest rate. With the

exception of this item, the response

filed by Tuchany was verified. For this

reason, in lieu of using the reported rate,

we are using the rate which we observed

for most of Tuchany’s loans.

Normal Value

Section 773 of the Act provides that

the normal value (NV) of the subject

merchandise shall be (1) the price at

which the foreign like product is first

sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered

for sale) for consumption in the

exporting country, in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade and, to the

extent practicable, at the same level of

trade as the export price or constructed

export price, (2) the price at which the

foreign like product is sold (or offered

for sale) for consumption in a country

other than the exporting country or the

United States (third country sales), or

(3) the constructed value of that

merchandise.

Some companies in this review have

sales in the home market of export

quality flowers exceeding five percent of

sales to the U.S. market, i.e., have a

viable home market. However,

consistent with our practice in previous

reviews of this order and based on

information provided by respondents,

we have determined that these sales are

not within the ordinary course of trade.

For a further discussion, see

Memorandum from Team to Barbara

Stafford, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, dated January

13, 1997.

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act states that

if the administering authority

determines that the normal value of the

subject merchandise cannot be

determined using home market prices,

then, notwithstanding the possible use

of third country prices, the normal value

of the subject merchandise may be the

constructed value of that merchandise.

We received comments and factual

information concerning this issue from

respondents on August 7, 1996, and

from petitioner on October 23, 1996.

We have used constructed value as

the basis of normal value since the final

results of the second antidumping duty

administrative review of Certain Fresh

Cut Flowers from Colombia, 55 FR

20491 (May 17, 1990). We based this

determination on three factors: (1) the

negative correlation of prices in third

country markets to prices in the United

States because of greater volatility and

the sporadic nature of the U.S. market

and differing peak price periods

(holidays); (2) Colombian producers’

relative lack of access to European

markets; and (3) the perishability of the

merchandise.

In Flowers 1991–94, we stated that our

analysis of the third country markets

was sufficient for us to reject the use of

third country prices, even though we

had not collected third country prices

from respondents. A significant factor in

the analysis was the Botero study. The

Botero study relied upon in the Flowers

1991–94 reviews demonstrated that

third country prices were not reliable

for purposes of foreign market value and

was based upon data from the period

1982–1989. The study has since been

updated to cover the period 1989

through 1995, which covers a portion of

the POR. Based on the new Botero

study, we find that differences in the

demand patterns between the markets

continue to exist and that seasonal

demand and price cycles between the

markets are statistically different.

Relying on the recent economic data

submitted by respondents and

consistent with the Department’s

practice in prior segments of this

proceeding, we have determined that a

particular market situation prevents a

proper comparison between third

country sales and U.S. sales within the

meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) of

the Act. Therefore, we have continued

to use CV as the basis for normal value.

See Memorandum from Team to Barbara

R. Stafford, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, dated November

21, 1996.

We calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. We included

the cost of materials and fabrication,

and the selling, general and

administrative expenses reported by

respondents. The per-unit constructed

value was calculated by dividing the

annual CV in pesos by the quantity of

export quality flowers sold by the

grower/exporter. We converted the peso

per stem CV based on the date of the

U.S. sale, in accordance with section

773A(a) of the Act. We consider nonexport quality flowers (culls) that are

produced in conjunction with export

quality flowers to be by-products.

Therefore, revenue from the sales of

culls was offset against the cost of

producing the export quality flowers.

We based selling, general and

administrative expenses on the amounts

incurred and realized by the

respondents in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product for consumption in the home

market. Where respondents had no

home market sales, we used the general

and administrative expenses associated

with their sales to all other markets.

Regarding selling expenses, all

respondents reporting sales of export

quality flowers in the home market

stated they had no selling expenses in

that market. Therefore, as facts

otherwise available, we did not include

selling expenses for those respondents

that had no home market sales.

Regarding profit, we verified that for

those producers/exporters with home

market sales of culls and/or export

quality flowers, those sales were outside

the ordinary course of trade because

they were made at below cost prices.

Consequently, we are unable to apply

the methods specified in section

773(e)(2)(A) or 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act

for calculating profit. Also, none of the

respondents realized a profit on

merchandise in the same general

category as flowers produced for sale in

Colombia. Therefore, we are not able to

apply the profit methodology described

in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i).

Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) permits the

Department to use ‘‘any other

reasonable method’’ to compute an

amount for profit, provided that the

amount ‘‘may not exceed the amount

normally realized by exporters or

producers * * * in connection with the

sale, for consumption in the foreign

country, of merchandise that is in the

same general category of products as the

subject merchandise.’’ Although we

have sought information on the profits

earned in Colombia by producers of

merchandise that might be considered

in the same general category of products

as flowers in order to compute the

‘‘profit cap’’ described in

773(e)(2)(B)(iii), we have not been able

to find any such producers. Therefore,

we do not have a profit cap.

The SAA, at 171, anticipates this

situation and directs that where

Commerce cannot determine profit

under the alternative methods described

in sections 773(e)(2)(B)(i) and

773(e)(2)(B)(ii) or calculate a profit cap,

the Department may apply

773(e)(2)(B)(iii) as the basis of facts

available. The SAA further states that

constructed value ‘‘must include an

amount * * * for profit,’’ (emphasis

added). SAA, at 169. We interpret this

statement, particularly because of the
16778 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

use of the words ‘‘must’’ and ‘‘amount’’

to mean that the profit figure used

cannot be zero and must be positive.

Therefore, as facts available, in this case

we have developed a profit figure from

the financial statements of a Colombian

producer of agricultural and processed

agricultural goods. We have

preliminarily determined that it is

appropriate to use the profit rate for that

company, 5.00 percent of cost of

production, for all respondents.

We added U.S. packing to constructed

value. In addition, for EP sales, we made

circumstance of sale adjustments for

direct expenses, where appropriate, in

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

of the Act.

Clavecol

Clavecol stated that it experienced

high water subsoil levels at one of its

farms and requested that the

Department adjust its costs for this

water damage. While we do not feel it

is appropriate to adjust total costs, we

do agree that the severe water damage

resulted in an unusual decrease in

productivity. Therefore, we have

normalized the production level to

make an appropriate adjustment for this

loss. Normalization of the production

levels when severe circumstances of

nature result in unusual losses of crop

is consistent with the Department’s past

practice. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut

Roses from Ecuador, 60 FR 7019, 7038

(February 6, 1995).

Flores Colon

In accordance with section

773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department

will normally calculate costs on the

basis of records kept by the exporter or

producer of the merchandise, ‘‘if such

records are kept in accordance with the

generally accepted accounting

principles of the exporting country (or

the producing country, where

appropriate) and reasonably reflect the

costs associated with the production

and sale of the merchandise.’’ Flores

Colon amortized its capitalized

expenses over a period that is longer

than the expected useful lives of the

capitalized assets. This method of

accounting results in assigning costs

which should be recognized during the

POR to future periods. Thus, the

company’s accounting methodology

regarding capitalized expenses does not

appropriately match those expenses

with income generated from their use

and, hence, does not reasonably reflect

the costs associated with the production

of the merchandise under review.

Based on information gathered at

verification, we have estimated the

various types and corresponding

amounts of expenses capitalized by

Flores Colon from 1993 through 1995.

We then amortized each expense

category (adjusted for inflation) over a

period consistent with the asset’s

expected useful life (e.g., two years for

cuttings). This approach attempts to

correct the distortion caused by the

manner in which Flores Colon

maintains its accounting records

without penalizing the company for its

unique accounting system.

HOSA

In the company’s original

questionnaire response, HOSA

calculated its per unit constructed value

using sales of both export and national

quality flowers. We asked HOSA to

recalculate its constructed value

deriving per unit costs based solely on

sales of export quality flowers, in

accordance with our long standing

practice in these reviews. While HOSA

complied with the Department’s

request, it objected strongly to this

methodology.

HOSA and Asocolflores raised the

same objections in Flowers 1991–94. We

disagreed on the grounds that there was

no change in the factual situation which

would significantly alter our established

treatment of cull, or national-quality,

flowers. Based on the information

provided in the current review, we are

continuing to treat all home market

sales of non-export quality flowers as

culls, regardless of how they are

designated under HOSA’s internal

grading system. Therefore, we are using

the most recent data submitted by

HOSA in which CV is calculated on the

basis of sales of export quality flowers.

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 773 A(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 that a

fluctuation exists, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

and CEP with NV, we preliminarily

determine that there are margins in the

amounts listed below for the period

March 1, 1995 through February 29,

1996.

Selected Respondents

The following 13 groups of firms

(composed of 97 companies) were

selected as respondents and received

individual reviews, as indicated below:

Agrodex Group ............ 3.06 percent.

Agricola de las Mercedes

Agricola el Retiro

Ltda.

Agrodex Ltda.

Degaflores Ltda.

Flores Camino Real

Ltda.

Flores Cuatro

Esquinas Ltda.

Flores de la Comuna

Ltda.

Flores de las Mercedes

Flores de Los Amigos

Ltda.

Flores de los

Arrayanes Ltda.

Flores De Mayo Ltda.

Flores del Gallinero

Ltda.

Flores del Potrero

Ltda.

Flores dos Hectareas

Ltda.

Flores de Pueblo

Viejo Ltda.

Flores el Trentino

Ltda.

Flores la Conejera

Ltda.

Flores Manare Ltda.

Florlinda Ltda.

Horticola el Triunfo

Horticola Montecarlo

Ltda.

Caicedo Group ............. 25.58 percent.

Agro Bosque S.A.

Andalucia S.A.

Aranjuez S.A.

Columbiano S.A.

‘‘CAICO’’

Caico

Exportaciones

Bochica S.A.

Floral Ltda.

Flores del Cauca

Inversiones Targa

Ltda.

Productos el Zorro

Via el Rosal

Claveles Colombianos

Group ........................ 1.13 percent.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16779

Claveles

Colombianos Ltda.

Elegant Flowers Ltda.

Fantasia Flowers

Ltda.

Splendid Flowers

Ltda.

Sun Flowers Ltda.

Cultivos Miramonte

Group ........................ 2.30 percent.

Cultivos Miramonte

S.A.

Flores Mocari S.A.

Floraterra Group .......... 7.85 percent.

Exporosas

Floraterra S.A.

Flores Casablanca

S.A.

Flores San Mateo

S.A.

Siete Flores S.A.

Flores Colon Ltda. ....... 4.46 percent.

Florex Group ................ 1.07 percent.

Agricola Guacari S.A.

Agricola el Castillo

Flores San Joaquin

Flores Altamira S.A.

Flores de

Exportacion S.A.

Guacatay Group ........... 3.23 percent.

Agricola Cunday

Agricola Guacatay

S.A.

Jardines Bacata Ltda.

Hosa Group .................. 3.02 percent.

Horticultura de la

Sabana S.A.

HOSA Ltda.

Innovacion Andina

S.A.

Minispray S.A.

Prohosa Ltda.

Maxima Farms Group .. 4.41 percent.

Agricola los Arboles

S.A.

Colombian D.C.

Flowers

Polo Flowers

Rainbow Flowers

Maxima Farms Inc.

Queens Flowers Group 2.15 percent.

Agroindustrial del

Rio Frio

Cultivos General

Ltda.

Flora Nova

Flora Atlas Ltda.

Flores Calima S.A.

Flores Canelon Ltda.

Flores de Bojaca

Flores del Cacique

Flores del Hato

Flores el Aljibe Ltda.

Flores el Cipres

Flores El Pino Ltda.

Flores El Roble S.A.

Flores el Tandil

Flores la Mana

Flores las Acacias

Ltda.

Flores la Valvanera

Ltda.

Flores Jayvana

Flores Ubate Ltda.

Jardines de Chia

Ltda.

Jardines Fredonia

Ltda.

Jardines Piracanta

M.G. Consultores

Ltda.

Mountain Roses

Queens Flowers de

Colombia Ltda.

Quality Flowers S.A.

Florval S.A. (Floval)

Jardines des Rosal

Tinzuque Group ........... 0.99 percent.

Tinzuque Ltda.

Catu S.A.

Tuchany Group ............ 6.37 percent.

Tuchany S.A.

Flores Sibate

Flores Tikaya

Flores Munya

Non-Selected Respondents

The following 144 companies

(including 22 groups of companies)

were not selected as respondents and

will receive a rate of 2.93 percent:

Aga Group

Agricola la Celestina

Agricola la Maria

Agricola Benilda Ltda.

Agricola Acevedo Ltda.

Agricola Arenales Ltda.

Agricola Bonanza Ltda.

Agricola Circasia Ltda.

Agricola el Cactus S.A.

Agricola el Mortino Ltda.

Agricola el Redil Ltda.

Agricola la Corsaria Ltda.

Agricola Las Cuadras Group

Agricola las Cuadras Ltda.

Flores de Hacaritama

Agricola Megaflor Ltda.

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.

Celia Flowers

Passion Flowers

Primo Flowers

Temptation Flowers

Andes Group

Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.

Flores de los Andes Ltda.

Flores Horizonte Ltda.

Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.

Aspen Gardens Ltda.

Astro Ltda.

Cantarrana Group

Cantarrana Ltda.

Agricola los Venados Ltda.

Cigarral Group

Flores Cigarral

Flores Tayrona

Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.

Colibri Flowers Ltda.

Combiflor

Cultiflores Ltda.

Cultivos Medellin Ltda.

Cultivos Tahami Ltda.

Daflor Ltda.

El Antelio S.A.

Envy Farms Group

Envy Farms

Flores Marandua Ltda.

Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A. (formerly

Flores de Cajibio Ltda.)

Farm Fresh Flowers Group

Agricola de la Fontana

Flores de Hunza

Flores Tibati

Inversiones Cubivan

Floralex Ltda.

Floralex Ltda.

Flores el Puente Ltda.

Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.

Floreales Group

Floreales Ltda.

Kimbaya

Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.

Flores Agromonte

Flores Ainsuca Ltda.

Flores Aurora Ltda.

Flores Carmel S.A.

Flores Comercial Bellavista Ltda.

Flores de Aposentos Ltda.

Flores de la Hacienda

Flores de la Montana

Flores de la Sabana S.A.

Flores de la Vega Ltda.

Flores de la Vereda

Flores de Serrezuela S.A.

Flores de Suba Ltda.

Flores del Lago Ltda.

Flores del Rio Group

Agricola Cardenal S.A.

Flores del Rio S.A.

Indigo S.A.

Flores de Oriente

Flores el Molino S.A.

Flores el Talle Ltda.

Flores el Zorro Ltda.

Flores Fusu

Flores Gioconda

Flores Juanambu Ltda.

Flores la Fragrancia

Flores las Caicas

Flores los Sauces

Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group

Santana

Flores Monserrate Ltda.

Flores Sagaro

Flores San Andres

Flores San Juan S.A.

Flores Santa Fe Ltda.

Flores Silvestres

Flores Tocarinda

Flores Tomine Ltda.

Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group

Flores Tropicales Ltda.
16780 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

Happy Candy Ltda.

Mercedes Ltda.

Rosas Colombianos Ltda.

Floricola la Gaitana S.A.

Fresh Flowers

Funza Group

Flores Alborada

Flores de Funza S.A.

Flores del Bosque Ltda.

Flexport de Colombia

Grupo el Jardin

Agricola el Jardin Ltda.

La Marotte S.A.

Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.

Industrial Agricola

Ingro Ltda.

Inverpalmas

Inversiones Flores del Alto

Inversiones Morrosquillo

Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.

Inversiones Santa Rosa ARW Ltda.

Inversiones Supala S.A.

La Plazoleta Ltda.

Las Amalias Group

Las Amalias S.A.

Pompones Ltda.

La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.

Ramiflora Ltda.

Linda Colombiana Ltda.

Los Geranios Ltda.

Manjui Ltda.

Monteverde Ltda.

Natuflora Ltda./San Martin Bloque B

Papagayo Group

Agricola Papagayo Ltda.

Inversiones Calypso S.A.

Petalos de Colombia Ltda.

Pisochago Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Group

Flores la Colmena Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.

Inversiones la Serena

Agricola la Capilla

Santana Flowers Group

Santana Flowers Ltda.

Hacienda Curibital Ltda.

Inversiones Istra Ltda.

Santa Rosa Group

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola la Ramada Ltda.

Agropecuaria Sierra Loma

Senda Brava Ltda.

Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.

Soagro Group

Flores Aguaclara Ltda.

Flores del Monte Ltda.

Flores la Estancia

Jaramillo y Daza

Toto Flowers Group

Flores de Suesca S.A.

Toto Flowers

Uniflor Ltda.

Velez de Monchaux Group

Velez De Monchaux e Hijos y Cia S. en C.

Agroteusa

Victoria Flowers

Vuelven Ltda.

No Shipments

The following 40 companies

responded that they had no shipments

during the POR. For those companies

that were examined in a previous

review, we will assess duties based on

their company-specific rate from the

most recent review. If we have not

previously conducted a review of a

company, duties equal to the ‘‘all

others’’ rate of 3.53 percent from the

Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV)

investigation will be assessed.

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia

Agricola Guali S.A.

Agricola Yuldama

Agrorosas

Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.

De La Pava Guevara E Hijos Ltda.

Disagro

Expoflora Ltda.

Florandia Herrera Camacho & Cia.

Flores Acuarela S.A.

Flores Aguila

Flores Andinas Ltda.

Flores de Tenjo Ltda.

Flores del Campo Ltda.

Flores el Rosal Ltda.

Flores Galia Ltda.

Flores Gloria

Flores la Lucerna

Flores la Macarena

Flores Ramo Ltda.

Flores Sairam Ltda

Flores San Carlos

Flores Selectas

Flores Violette

Green Flowers

Inversiones Almer Ltda.

Inversiones Bucarelia

Inversiones Cota

Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.

Iturrama S.A.

Luisa Flowers

Otono (Agroindustrial Otono)

Planatas S.A.

Propagar Plantas S.A.

Rosaflor

Rosex Ltda.

Sansa Flowers

S.B. Talee de Colombia

Siempreviva

Tag Ltda

Unlocatable

The following 116 companies

(including 2 groups) were unlocatable.

For those unlocatable companies that

were examined in a previous review, we

will assess duties based on their

company-specific rate from the most

recent review. If we have not previously

conducted a review of an unlocatable

company, duties equal to the ‘‘all

others’’ rate of 3.53 percent from the

Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV)

investigation will be assessed.

Achalay

Agricola Altiplano

Agricola del Monte

Agricola la Siberia

Agrocaribu Ltda.

Agro de Narino

Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.

Agropecuaria la Marcela

Agropecuria Mauricio

Agrotabio Kent

Aguacarga

Alcala

Amoret

A.Q.

Carcol Ltda.

Classic

Coexflor

Color Explosion

Cota

Crest D’or

Crop S.A.

Cypress Valley

Degaflor

Del Monte

Del Tropico Ltda.

Diveragricola

El Milaro

El Timbul Ltda.

Exotic Flowers

Exotico

Ferson Trading

Flamingo Flowers

Flor Colombiana S.A.

Flores Ainsus

Flores Alcala Ltda.

Flores Calichana

Flores Corola

Flores de Iztari

Flores de Memecon/Corinto

Flores del Cielo Ltda.

Flores del Cortijo

Flores Gicro Group

Flores Gicro Ltda.

Flores de Colombia

Flores Hacienda Bejucol

Flores la Cabanuela

Flores la Pampa

Flores las Mesitas

Flores Montecarlo

Flores Palimana

Flores S.A.

Flores Saint Valentine

Flores San Andres

Flores Santana

Flores Sausalito

Flores Sindamanoi

Flores Tenerife Ltda

Floricola

Florisol

Florpacifico

Four Seasons

Fracolsa

F. Salazar

Garden and Flowers Ltda.

German Ocampo

Granja

Gypso Flowers

Hacienda la Embarrada

Hacienda Matute

Hana/Hisa Group

Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.

Flores Tokai Hisa

Hernando Monroy

Horticultura de la Sasan

Industrial Terwengel Ltda.

Inversiones Maya, Ltda.

Inversiones Silma

Inversiones Sima

Jardin de Carolina

Jardines Choconta

Jardines Darpu

Jardines Natalia Ltda.

Jardines Tocarema

J.M. Torres

Kingdom S.A.

La Colina

La Embairada

La Flores Ltda.

La Floresta
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16781

L.H.

Loma Linda

Loreana Flowers

Luisiana Farms

M. Alejandra

Mauricio Uribe

Merastec

Morcoto

Nasino

Olga Rincon

Piracania

Prismaflor

Reme Salamanca

Rosa Bella

Rosas y Jardines

Rose

San Valentine

Sarena

Select Pro

Shila

Solor Flores Ltda.

Starlight

Susca

Sweet Farms

The Beall Company

The Rose

Tomino

Villa Diana

Zipa Flowers

Non-Respondents

The following 68 companies

(including 2 groups of companies) did

not respond to our questionnaire, or

responded after the deadline date

without explanation. We will assess

duties based on the highest rate for any

company from this or any prior segment

of this proceeding. This rate is 76.60

percent.

Agrex de Oriente

Agricola de Occident

Agroindustrial Madonna S.A.

Alstroflores Ltda.

Ancas Ltda.

Arboles Azules Ltda.

Becerra Castellanos y Cia.

Bojaca Group

Agricola Bojaca

Universal Flowers

Flores y Plantas Tropicales

Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.

Tropiflora

Cienfuegos Group

Cienfuegos Ltda.

Flores la Conchita

Clavelez

Consorcio Agroindustrial

Cultivos Guameru

Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.

Dynasty Roses Ltda.

Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen

Tantau)

El Tambo

Euroflora

Exoticas

Exportadora

Flor y Color

Flora Intercontinental

Flores Abaco S.A.

Flores Bachue Ltda.

Flores Cerezangos

Flores Depina S.A.

Flores de Guasca

Flores de la Cuesta

Flores de la Maria

Flores del Tambo

Flores de la Parcelita

Flores el Lobo

Flores el Salitre Ltda.

Flores Flamingo Ltda.

Flores Juncalito Ltda.

Flores Monteverde

Flores Suasuque

Flores Tiba S.A.

Flores Urimaco

Florexpo

Florimex Colombia Ltda.

Flowers of the World/Rosa

Horticultura el Molino

Illusion Flowers

Industria Santa Clara

Inversiones Morcote

Inversiones Playa

Inversiones y Producciones Tecnicas

Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.

Jardines de America

Jardines de Timana

Karla Flowers

Las Flores

Laura Flowers

Pinar Guameru

Plantaciones Delta Ltda.

Rosales de Colombia Ltda.

Rosales de Suba Ltda.

Roselandia

San Ernesto

Santa Helena S.A.

Superflora Ltda.

Tropical Garden

Villa Cultivos Ltda.

Bankrupt Companies

The following group of companies is

preliminarily determined to be bankrupt

and will be assessed at a rate of 7.85

percent.

Oro Verde Group

Inversiones Miraflores S.A.

Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing not later

than ten days after publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 45 days

of the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised

in case briefs, may be filed no later than

five days after the time limit for filing

case briefs. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held two days after the

scheduled date for submission of

rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and

rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR 353.38(e).

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing. The Department will

issue final results of this review within

120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Upon completion of the final results

in this review, the Department shall

determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer-specific ad valorem

antidumping duty rates based on the

ratio of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

made during the POR to the total

customs value of the sales used to

calculate those duties. This rate will be

assessed uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. (This method for calculating the

antidumping duty rate to be applied to

each importer is equivalent to dividing

the total amount of antidumping duties,

which are calculated by taking the

difference between statutory NV and

statutory EP or CEP, by the total

statutory EP or CEP value of the sales

compared, and adjusting the result by

the average difference between EP or

CEP and customs value for all

merchandise examined during the POR.

Individual differences between EP or

CEP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above.)

The Department will issue

appraisement instructions on each

exporter directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

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

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates

established in the final results of this

review; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate 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

review, a prior 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 this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 3.10 percent, the adjusted ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV

investigation. These deposit

requirements, 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 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
16782 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

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 section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: March 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8958 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–046]

Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan;

Termination of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the petitioner, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours

& Company, Inc. (Du Pont), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 2647, January 17, 1997)

the notice of initiation of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on polychloroprene rubber from Japan

with respect to Denki Kagujo K.K.

(Denki), Denki/Hoei Sangyo Co. Ltd.

(Denki/Hoei Sangyo), Mitsui Bussan,

Showa Neoprene K.K. (Showa), Showa/

Hoei Sangyo Co. Ltd. (Showa/Hoei

Sangyo), Suzugo Corporation (Suzugo),

Tosoh (formerly Toyo Soda) Corporation

(Tosoh), and Tosoh/Hoei Sangyo Co.,

Ltd. (Tosoh/Hoei Sangyo), for the period

December 1, 1995, through November

30, 1996. We received a request for

withdrawal of this review from Du Pont

on February 5, 1997. Because this

request was timely submitted and

because no other interested parties

requested a review of these

manufacturers/exporters, we are

terminating this review. Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed after January

1, 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Justin S. Jee, or Thomas F. Futtner,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–2657 or 482–3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 6, 1973, the Department

of the Treasury published in the Federal

Register (38 FR 35393) the antidumping

finding on polychloroprene rubber

(rubber) from Japan. On December 3,

1996, the Department published a notice

of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (61 FR 64050).

On December 26, 1996, the petitioner,

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,

Inc. (Du Pont), requested that we

conduct an administrative review for

the period December 1, 1995, through

November 30, 1996, covering eight

producers and/or exporters: Denki

Kagujo (Denki), Denki/Hoei Sangyo Co.,

Ltd. (Denki/Hoei Sangyo), Mitsui

Bussan, Showa Neoprene K.K. (Showa),

Showa/Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd. (Showa/

Hoei Sangyo), Suzugo Corporation

(Suzugo), Tosoh (formerly Toyo Soda)

Corporation (Tosoh), and Tosoh/Hoei

Sangyo Co., Ltd. (Tosoh/Hoei Sangyo).

We published a notice of initiation of

the antidumping administrative review

on these companies on January 17, 1997

(62 FR 2647). On February 5, 1997, we

received a withdrawal of request for

review from Du Pont.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may allow a party that

requests an administrative review to

withdraw such request not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review.

Because Du Pont’s request for

termination was submitted within the

90 day time limit and there were no

requests for review from other interested

parties, we are terminating this review.

This notice is published in

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

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8957 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–489–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes and Welded Carbon Steel

Line Pipe From Turkey; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting

administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes and

welded carbon steel line pipe from

Turkey. For information on the net

subsidy for each reviewed company for

each class or kind of merchandise, as

well as for all non-reviewed companies,

see the Preliminary Results of Reviews

section of this notice. If the final results

remain the same as these preliminary

results of administrative reviews, we

will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

access countervailing duties as detailed

in the Preliminary Results of Reviews

section of this notice. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. (See Public

Comment section of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Moore or Cameron Cardozo,

Office of Countervailing Duty/

Antidumping Enforcement VI, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2849 or (202) 482–

2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 7, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register (51

FR 7984) the countervailing duty orders

on certain welded carbon steel pipes

and tubes (pipe and tube) and certain

welded carbon steel line pipe (line pipe)

from Turkey. On March 4, 1996, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ (61 FR 8238) of these

countervailing duty orders. We received

timely requests for reviews, and we

initiated the reviews, covering the

period January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995, on April 25, 1996

(61 FR 18378).