31724 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

companies from any other interested

party and because no other request for

review was received with respect to

other companies, we are rescinding this

review in its entirety in accordance with

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Clarification of Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Review

On April 27, 1998, we published our

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Changed Circumstances Review;

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From Korea (63 FR 20572). In these final

results, the cash deposit rate listed for

SeAH was incorrect. The correct cash

deposit rate is 5.31 percent ad valorem,

as found in Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea;

Amendment of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (63 FR 2200, 2202, January 14,

1998). This cash deposit rate will apply

to all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after April 27, 1998. This cash deposit

rate shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice is published in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(f).

Dated: June 14, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15469 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–301–602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 2, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain fresh cut flowers from

Colombia. This review covers a total of

424 producers and/or exporters of fresh

cut flowers to the United States during

the period March 1, 1996 through

February 28, 1997.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have made certain changes for the final

results. The review indicates the

existence of dumping margins for

certain firms during the review period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa

Jeong, Hong-Anh Tran or Todd Hansen,

Office 1, Group 1, 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) 482–1278, (202) 482–0176 or (202)

482–1276, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to those

codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April

1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 2, 1998, we published a

notice of Preliminary Results and Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (Preliminary

Results), wherein we invited interested

parties to comment. See 63 FR 5354. At

the request of the interested parties, we

held a public hearing on April 14, 1998.

Scope of Review

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 of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For the price to the United States, we

used export price (EP) or constructed

export price (CEP) as defined in section

772(a) and 772(b) of the Act. We

calculated EP and CEP based on the

same methodology used in the

Preliminary Results with the following

exceptions: (1) we recalculated

Tuchany’s credit expenses net of

commission and international freight

expenses (see infra Comment 14); (2) we

accounted for the returns for Clavecol

and Caicedo for the months reported

rather than allocating them over the

period of review (POR) (see infra

Comment 16).

Normal Value

As discussed in the Preliminary

Results, we determined that home

market and third-country sales are not

an appropriate basis for normal value

(NV) and, therefore, used constructed

value (CV) as defined in section 773(e)

of the Act as the basis for determining

NV. We used the same methodology to

calculate NV as that described in the

Preliminary Results.

Analysis of Comments Received

We received case and rebuttal briefs

from the Floral Trade Council (FTC), the

domestic interested party, and the

Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores

de Flores (Asocolflores), an association

of Colombian flower producers

representing many of the respondents in

this case.

General Issues

Comment 1: Asocolflores argues that

zero and de minimis margins should be

included in the calculation of the rate

for non-selected respondents since it is

reasonable to assume that some of the

non-selected respondents would have

received the same had they been

individually reviewed. Citing to

Serampore Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. United

States, 696 F. Supp. 665, 668–69 (CIT

1988), Asocolflores argues that

excluding zero and de minimis margins

amounts to a presumption of dumping

on behalf of non-selected firms.

Asocolflores further argues that if the

rates of selected companies are not, in

some way, ‘‘representative,’’ then there

is no legal basis for using such rates for

non-selected respondents. Referring to

National Knitwear & Sportswear

Association v. United States, 779 F.

Supp. 1364, 1372 (CIT 1991),

Asocolflores elaborates that the benefits

of zero or de minimis margins made

available to selected respondents should

be extended to non-selected

respondents. Acknowledging that the

Act provides for the exclusion of zero

and de minimis margins in calculating

the cash deposit rate for non-examined

producers in an investigation,

Asocolflores differentiates this situation
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31725

from the final results of an

administrative review which give rise to

actual duty payments. Asocolflores

emphasizes that because of the

Department’s decision to limit the

number of respondents, all exporters

and importers do not have the ability to

obtain their own assessment rates as

they normally would in an

administrative review.

Asocolflores claims that the

Department’s decision to exclude zero

and de minimis margins is arbitrary and

denies non-selected respondents their

substantive and procedural due process

rights. Moreover, Asocolflores asserts

that because no adverse facts available

(AFA) rates were applied in this review,

the Department’s approach of excluding

zero and de minimis rates alone would

in effect result in an ‘‘unbalanced’’

approach, defeating the rationale for a

‘‘balanced’’ approach (i.e., excluding

both AFA and zero and de minimis

margins), taken by the Department in

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from

Colombia: Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287

(October 14, 1997) (Ninth Review Final

Results).

In the event the Department continues

to exclude zero, de minimis and AFA

margins, Asocolflores claims that

Tuchany’s rate should be excluded

because it is mostly derived from

information based on facts available

(FA). By excluding Tuchany’s rate,

Asocolflores asserts that a more

‘‘balanced’’ result will be maintained.

The FTC contends that there is no

valid basis for excluding margins based

on AFA on the one hand while

including de minimis margins on the

other. The FTC argues that Asocolflores’

argument ignores the fact that the

Department’s methodology, one of

selecting only the largest producers in

this case, is not intended to be a

statistically representative sampling of

the whole population. The FTC asserts

that over the past twelve years, all

respondents have had many

opportunities to request partial

revocation, by demonstrating that they

were not dumping. Those respondents

who have succeeded in obtaining

revocation, the FTC states, are properly

excluded from the universe from which

a sample would be drawn in future

administrative reviews. Consequently,

the FTC asserts that the remaining

universe is fairly presumed to consist of

those producers that continue to dump.

Therefore, the FTC argues that the

Department’s practice of excluding zero

and de minimis margins in calculating

the rate for non-selected respondents is

appropriate. The FTC states that

margins such as Tuchany’s that are not

based entirely on AFA should be

included in the non-selected respondent

rate.

Department’s Position: Consistent

with our practice in Ninth Review Final

Results, we are not including zero or de

minimis rates or rates based entirely on

AFA in the calculation of the rate for

non-selected respondents. As stated in

that segment of this proceeding, there is

no over-arching rule as to the inclusion

or exclusion of zero and de minimis

rates in calculating the rate to be

applied to non-selected respondents.

The approach we have adopted parallels

the statutorily mandated formula for

calculating the all-others rate, i.e., the

weighted-average rate of uninvestigated

companies not including AFA and zero

and de minimis rates. See section

735(c)(5) of the Act. This approach is

both reasonable and one that yields a

balanced result.

We disagree with Asocolflores that

due process is being denied to nonselected respondents because we have

not included zero and de minimis

margins. Asocolflores misread the

relevant case law. The cases cited by

Asocolflores stand for the proposition

that the parties’ procedural and

substantice rights are limited to those

set forth in the antidumping statute and

regulations. Arjay Associates, Inc. v.

Bush, 891 F. 2d 894, 896 (Fed. Cir.

1989); Gulf States Tube Division of

Quanex Corp. v. United States, 981 F.

Supp. 630, 652 (CIT 1997); see also

Kemira Fibres Oy v. United States, 858

F.Supp. 229, 235 (CIT 1994). In the

instant case, our methodology of

excluding zero and de minimis margins

in the calculation of rates applicable to

non-respondents in no way prevents

non-selected respondents from

obtaining revocation of the antidumping

duty order in this case. Rather, they

have the opportunity for revocation as

set forth in Ninth Review Final Results

at 53290 (Comment 4). Specifically,

companies that requested reviews in

prior reviews but were not selected for

examination may request revocation by

certifying and demonstrating that they

have not sold subject merchandise at

not less than normal value during the

current and two prior periods of review

(POR).

We also disagree with Asocolflores

that because there is no AFA-based rate

applicable in this review, zero and de

minimis margins must be included in

the non-selected respondents’ rate

calculation in order to maintain a

‘‘balanced’’ result. The fact that there is

no AFA-based rate in the present review

does not affect the validity of our

methodology of excluding zero and de

minimis rates and rates based on AFA

from the calculation of the non-selected

respondent rate. For instance, if there

had been a rate based on AFA but no

zero or de minimis rate in the present

review, we would have followed the

same approach by excluding the AFA

rate from the calculation of the nonselected respondent rate.

As we stated in the Ninth Review

Final Results at 53290, we do not find

that the selected respondents, who

represent the largest producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise,

are necessarily representative of the

whole population. Therefore, we do not

treat the selected companies as a

statistical sample and compute a margin

that is based on the results of all the

selected companies.

Finally, we have included Tuchany’s

rate in the calculation of the rate for

non-selected respondents. Because its

rate is not entirely based on AFA, it

would be included in calculating an allothers rate, the same approach that we

are adopting here.

Comment 2: The FTC argues that the

Department’s reasons for rejecting thirdcountry prices as the basis for

determining NV in past reviews are

insufficient to support a finding that

third-country prices should not be used

for any of the respondents in this

review. The FTC notes that the

Department has rejected the use of

prices from sales to European markets in

past reviews because of evidence

indicating that prices in European

markets are more stable than those in

the U.S. market, and that the demand

pattern in European markets differs

significantly from the U.S. market due

to differences in the flower-giving

holidays. In the present review,

however, the FTC claims that the

Department has no reason to reject nonEuropean third-country prices as the

basis for determining NV. The FTC

notes that Canada and Japan have

become increasingly important markets

for Colombian flower exporters, and that

in this review the Department found

that several exporters had viable

markets in Japan and/or Canada. The

FTC claims that there is no evidence on

the record indicating that either the

Japanese or the Canadian market differs

significantly from the U.S. market.

Moreover, the FTC argues that the

Department has consistently determined

the proper basis for NV on a companyspecific basis. Therefore, the

Department should use sales to Japan or

Canada as the basis for determining NV

whenever these markets are found to be

viable for individual respondents.

Asocolflores argues that the nonEuropean third-country markets are not
31726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

representative markets for the majority

of Colombian growers and that sales to

these markets should not be used as the

basis of NV for any of the responding

companies. Asocolflores notes that all of

the major third-country markets for

Colombian flower growers are

European, and that the Canadian and

Japanese are not significant thirdcountry markets for the Colombian

industry as a whole. Asocolflores argues

that the Department was correct not to

use third-country prices to Japan or

Canada to calculate NV for certain

respondents in the Preliminary Results

because reliance on such data would not

produce representative results for the

non-selected respondents.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the FTC. Because Japan and

Canada are not significant export

markets for Colombia, we determined

that, under the facts of this case, prices

to Canada or Japan are not

representative within the meaning of

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act. As

discussed in the Preliminary Results at

5355, we limited our analysis to a subset

of the Colombian companies exporting

to the United States and are basing the

antidumping duty assessments for the

non-selected companies on the margins

calculated for the selected companies.

Given this, it is important that our

analysis be as representative as possible

of the companies that were not selected

to respond to our questionnaire.

It is clear that neither Japan nor

Canada is an important export market

for Colombian flower growers. Evidence

on the record indicates that Canada

represents less than three percent of

flower exports from Colombia and Japan

represents less than one percent. Thus,

to use sales to Japan or Canada as the

basis of our margin calculations for the

few exporters that have viable markets

in Japan and Canada and then include

those results in calculating the rate used

for assessing duties on the non-selected

respondents would be inappropriate for

the vast majority of growers.

Consequently, in accordance with

section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based

NV on CV.

As an alternative method of ensuring

that NV was representative, we

considered using third-country sales for

those companies with viable thirdcountry markets, but excluding those

companies from the calculation of the

assessment rate for non-selected

exporters. However, such a

methodology would substantially

reduce the percentage of exports during

the POR that would form the basis of the

assessment calculation for non-selected

exporters. Therefore, we determine that

the use of CV is a more reasonable

means of establishing a representative

NV for purposes of calculating the

assessment rates for all exporters under

review.

Export Price or Constructed Export

Price

Comment 3: The FTC claims that

section 772(d)(1) of the Act explicitly

requires the Department to reduce CEP

first by deducting commissions and

then by deducting any indirect selling

expenses for both affiliated and

unaffiliated parties. The FTC contends

that the Act recognizes that a CEP

reseller, whether or not affiliated,

should be treated as a separate entity.

Consequently, because all CEP

transactions are made at the same level

of trade (LOT), the FTC argues that

commissions should be treated the same

whether the CEP sale is made through

an affiliated reseller or through an

unaffiliated reseller. The FTC further

argues that, because of changes which

resulted from the URAA, no doublecounting would result if the Department

deducts commissions paid by the

exporter to an affiliated importer and

then deducts any additional indirect

expenses.

Asocolflores counters that the FTC’s

commission argument has been

repeatedly rejected by the Department

in earlier reviews of this same case, as

well as in Fresh Cut Roses from

Ecuador: Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 7019,

7028 (Feb. 6, 1995) (Roses from

Ecuador), and in Fresh Cut Roses from

Colombia: Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR 6980,

6992 (Feb. 6, 1995) (Roses from

Colombia). Asocolflores also points out

that the Department’s rejection of the

FTC’s argument that related party

commissions should be deducted from

U.S. price was recently affirmed by the

U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).

See Asociacion Colombiana de

Exportadores de Flores v. United States,

Slip Op. 98–33 at 74–81 (March 25,

1998) (Asociacion Colombiana).

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the FTC. Consistent with

Asociacion Colombiana and the

Department’s practice in prior reviews

of this case, the Department will make

adjustments for commissions paid to

unaffiliated U.S. consignees, while

adjusting for actual U.S. selling

expenses of affiliated consignees of the

exporter. See Ninth Review Final

Results at 53294; see also Asociacion

Colombiana at 78–81. Notwithstanding

the fact that the decision in Asociacion

Colombiana is based on pre-URAA

practice, the principle remains the

same: to avoid double-counting, we

deduct commissions paid to unaffiliated

resellers in the United States, but for

affiliated resellers, we deduct the actual

selling expenses of the affiliated

importer and allocate profit.

Comment 4: Asocolflores contends

that the Department should calculate

the CEP profit rate on a monthly rather

than an annual basis. Asocolflores

points to the holiday-driven demand

patterns for flowers in the United States,

noting that the price for flowers can

vary by more than 100 percent between

peak and off-peak months. Asocolflores

states that this variability in demand for

flowers results in highly variable profit

rates when comparing peak to off-peak

months.

Asocolflores argues that calculating

the CEP profit rate on a monthly basis

is necessary to avoid the distortion

inherent in deducting a constant profit

percentage from monthly sales when

actual profit margins are demonstrably

and radically different. Asocolflores

notes that nothing in the Act or the

Department’s regulations requires the

CEP profit deduction be calculated on

an annual basis. Asocolflores points to

the preamble to the Department’s 1997

regulations where the Department states

that paragraph (d) of section 351.402

affords the Department the flexibility to

calculate the CEP profit deduction on

the basis of something less than all sales

of the subject merchandise and the

foreign like product throughout the

period of investigation or review. See

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27354

(May 19, 1997). Because both CEP and

EP prices reflect huge swings in

monthly prices, a monthly calculation

of the CEP profit rate would, according

to Asocolflores, be more consistent with

the contemplated purpose of the CEP

profit adjustment as described in the

Statement of Administrative Action, H.

Doc. 316, 103d Cong., 2nd Session 870

(SAA) at page 153, i.e., calculating CEP

price to be, as closely as possible, a

price corresponding to EP.

The FTC argues that an arm’s length

price to an unrelated importer would

incorporate some element of profit,

whereas a methodology that isolates

holiday sales from other transactions, as

proposed by Asocolflores, may result in

a zero profit rate for several months of

the POR because CEP profit is

calculated based on the total profit for

both the grower and the reseller. The

FTC contends that while importers may

realize different monthly profits based

on seasonal price swings, growers’ profit

expectations are annual. Use of an

annual rate, the FTC argues, ensures

that some profit is assigned to all

months, reflecting the reasonable
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31727

expectations of arm’s length importers.

The FTC notes that the use of an annual

rate still results in a variation in the

amount of CEP profit when prices vary.

The FTC further cites to Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Singapore, and the United Kingdom;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081,

2125 (January 15, 1997) (AFBs from

France, et al), where the Department

indicated a preference for a single rate

for CEP profit. The FTC argues that

Asocolflores’ logic that the use of

monthly prices requires the use of

monthly profit rates leads to the

conclusion that sale-by-sale

comparisons require the use of sale-bysale CEP profit rates, a proposition that

would undermine the very purpose of

the CEP profit deduction.

Department’s Position: Consistent

with our practice in Ninth Review Final

Results and the Preliminary Results, we

have used an annual CEP profit rate for

purposes of these final results. As the

FTC has noted, the Department’s

practice has been to apply a single rate

for CEP profit. Although Asocolflores

has argued that profit rates may vary

due to changes in demand conditions,

this is true, to some extent, for many

products. Moreover, the CEP profit

calculation is normally based on the

overall profit of home market and U.S.

sales rather than on the profit of a

particular U.S. sale. Although a

respondent may have few or no home

market sales, we nonetheless use an

average profit rate for those U.S. and

home market sales that were made. We

determine that the circumstances

surrounding this case do not compel a

departure from our usual practice of

using a single rate for CEP profit.

Comment 5: Asocolflores argues that

the Department erred in calculating CEP

profit, because the calculation of the

ratio of total profit to total selling

expenses did not include imputed

selling expenses, while this ratio was

applied to a U.S. selling expense figure

that included imputed selling expenses.

According to Asocolflores, this

treatment is inconsistent and overstates

profit on U.S. selling activities.

Asocolflores argues that the

Department’s past rationales for this

practice do not withstand analysis.

Asocolflores contends that the

Department’s statement that ‘‘ ‘actual’

profit is calculated on the basis of

‘actual’ rather than imputed expenses’’

in Certain Cold-Rolled and CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 18404, 18440 (April 15,

1997) is unfounded, because the Act

makes no distinction between ‘‘actual’’

and ‘‘imputed’’ expenses. According to

Asocolflores, imputed credit represents

a real expense to the company because

payment today is worth more than

payment in the future. Additionally,

Asocolflores notes that the Department

‘‘imputes’’ inflation in calculating the

growers’ CV and includes this imputed

inflation adjustment when calculating

‘‘actual’’ profit and the CEP profit ratio.

Asocolflores also disagrees with the

Department’s explanation that, ‘‘if [the

Department] were to account for

imputed expenses in the denominator of

the CEP allocation ratio, we would

double-count the interest expense

incurred for credit and inventory

carrying costs because these expenses

are already included in the

denominator.’’ Id. Asocolflores notes

that in calculating CEP, the Department

makes an adjustment for both imputed

credit expense and indirect selling

expenses, which already include actual

interest expense. Asocolflores contends

that to the extent the Department

believes that imputed credit expenses

and interest expense overlap, the

Department should be consistent and

eliminate all double-counting by either

reducing U.S. indirect selling expenses

by the amount of imputed credit

expense or according the same

treatment to both actual and imputed

credit as expenses for purposes of

calculating and allocating CEP profit.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Asocolflores. Consistent with our

practice in the Ninth Review Final

Results and the Preliminary Results, we

excluded imputed selling expenses in

deriving total actual profit for these final

results. As described in a recent policy

bulletin, we included these expenses in

the pool of U.S. selling expenses used

to allocate a portion of total actual profit

to each sale. See Import Administration

Policy Bulletin number 97/1, issued on

September 4, 1997, concerning the

Calculation of Profit for Constructed

Export Price Transactions, at 3 and note

5; see also Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From

Thailand, 63 FR 7392, 7395–96

(February 13, 1998).

Asocolflores’ argument confuses

actual interest expenses with

adjustments for imputed credit. While

interest expense components included

in the calculation of indirect selling

expenses and CV are actual expenses,

imputed credit is an opportunity cost,

and not an actual, recorded expense.

Contrary to Asocolflores’ claims, the

inflation adjustment to depreciation

expense does not represent an

opportunity cost, but rather, reflects a

restatement of the value of fixed assets

to account for the effects of inflation.

When allocating a portion of the

actual profit to each CEP sale, we

include imputed credit as part of the

total U.S. expenses allocation factor,

consistent with section 772(f)(2) of the

Act which defines the term ‘‘total U.S.

expenses’’ as those described under

sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. We

note that credit expense is specifically

enumerated in section 772(d)(1)(B) of

the Act.

Normal Value

Comment 6: While acknowledging

that the Department’s practice was

recently upheld in Asociacion

Colombiana at 27–34, Asocolflores

maintains that the Department must

allocate production costs equally to

national and export quality flowers

when calculating CV. Asocolflores relies

on IPSCO, Inc. v. United States, 965

F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (IPSCO) in

which, according to Asocolflores, the

court held that lower quality grades of

the same primary product which are

used for the same purpose and

produced by the same process may not

be treated as a by-product to which no

production costs are allocated.

Asocolflores also notes that the court in

Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. United

States, 946 F. Supp. 11 (CIT 1996) (Thai

Pineapple) had rejected the

Department’s attempt to allocate

production costs on the basis of relative

sales value. Asocolflores argues that the

Department must follow its post-IPSCO

practice of allocating the same

production costs to different grades of

product that are produced in the same

manner, citing to such cases as

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,

and Strip from the Republic of Korea;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Notice of

Revocation in Part, 61 FR 35177, 35182–

83 (July 5, 1996); Porcelain-on-Steel

Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 25908, 25911–912 (May

12, 1997); and Canned Pineapple Fruit

From Thailand; Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 60 FR

29553, 29561 (June 5, 1995). In

accordance with these precedents and

the above-cited court decisions,

Asocolflores argues that the Department

should allocate production costs to all

flowers sold regardless of grade.

Noting that Asocolflores’ argument

has been raised and rejected in Roses

from Colombia and that the

Department’s practice has been upheld

by the court in Asociacion Colombiana,
31728 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

the FTC argues that the Department

should continue to reject Asocolflores’

argument that production costs should

be allocated to national quality flowers

or culls.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Asocolflores. Our general practice

in cases involving agricultural goods has

been to treat ‘‘reject’’ products as byproducts and to offset the total cost of

production with revenues earned from

the sale of any such ‘‘reject’’ products.

This approach has been upheld by the

CIT in Asociacion Colombiana.

Specifically, the CIT found that our

approach ‘‘represents a permissible

construction of the Act and a

longstanding agency practice.’’

Asociacion Colombiana at 31.

Furthermore, the CIT held that

Asocolflores’ reliance on IPSCO and

Thai Pineapple was misguided (Id. at

29), noting that those two cases

involved the accounting treatment of coproducts, not by-products. In light of the

fact that our treatment of national

quality flowers as by-products for cost

allocation purposes has been upheld by

the CIT, we see no reason to depart from

our methodology.

Comment 7: Asocolflores maintains

that the Department’s failure to make an

adjustment to financial expenses for

‘‘net monetary correction,’’ while

including an adjustment for the effects

of inflation in respondents’ depreciation

and amortization costs, leads to

significant distortions in the calculation

of CV. Asocolflores argues that in

addition to requiring an inflation

adjustment to asset values, Colombian

law and generally accepted accounting

principles (GAAP) also require the

adjustment for ‘‘monetary correction,’’

which represents the net gain or loss to

the company caused by inflation on its

net exposed monetary assets and

liabilities.

Asocolflores explains that under

Colombian GAAP, financial costs, along

with depreciation and amortization

expense, must be adjusted from nominal

pesos to current value pesos because the

costs incurred by a company in the

current period but not payable until

later periods, such as accounts payable

and peso loan balances, will be paid in

the future when the pesos will be

cheaper in current value terms.

According to Asocolflores, the

Department’s methodology results in a

distorted cost calculation that mixes

nominal pesos for some costs with

inflation adjusted, current value pesos

for other costs. Asocolflores contends

that the Department must either

disregard all inflation adjustments or

include the net monetary correction.

Asocolflores asserts that under section

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

must calculate costs based on the

records of the exporter, unless such

costs are distortive or do not reasonably

reflect costs. According to Asocolflores,

the Department violates the Act by

disregarding the net monetary

correction without making a finding that

the inclusion of the adjustment distorts

costs or otherwise does not reasonably

reflect the cost associated with the

production and sale of the merchandise.

Asocolflores also cites past cases

involving inflation accounting where

the Department recognized that the

monetary correction must be included.

See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker

from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 25803 (April 28, 1993)

(Cement from Mexico (1993)); Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker from

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

17148 (April 9, 1997) (Cement from

Mexico (1997)); Aimcor, Ala. Silicon,

Inc. v. United States, slip op. No. 95–

130, 1995 WL 431186 (CIT July 20,

1995). Asocolflores further argues that

the Department’s rationale for excluding

monetary correction in the Ninth Review

Final Results, that inflation effects to

financial expenses are ‘‘largely confined

within the POR,’’ is unreasonable

because the significance of inflation

upon costs is based not only on the age

of the asset or loan but also on its

amount.

The FTC asserts that the Department’s

rejection of the monetary correction

adjustment is supported by past cases

such as Roses from Colombia, where the

Department specifically declined to

include inflation adjustments resulting

from the annual revaluation of nonmonetary assets because the adjustment

‘‘merely reflects an increase to

respondent’s financial statement equity

due to the restatement of non-monetary

assets to account for inflation.’’ 60 FR at

6993. The FTC distinguishes Cement

from Mexico (1993) in that the Mexican

inflation adjustment was determined to

pertain solely to monetary assets and

liabilities whereas the Colombian

monetary correction is an adjustment to

non-monetary assets. The FTC also

points out that the court in Asociation

Colombiana has upheld the

Department’s rejection of the

adjustment.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Asocolflores. Consistent with our

practice in Ninth Review Final Results,

we have continued to adjust only fixed

asset costs for the effects of inflation and

have not revised CV to include the

monetary correction suggested by

Asocolflores. With the exception of

cases involving countries with

‘‘hyperinflationary’’ economies, the

Department typically ignores the effects

of inflation on costs incurred during the

period of investigation or review.

However, as in this review, the

Department has recognized the effect

that high levels of inflation may have on

the historical cost of certain production

assets when compounded over periods

prior to the period of investigation or

review. In these instances, the

Department adjusts the historical cost of

these assets such that they reflect the

currency value during the period for

which costs are calculated.

In Asociacion Colombiana, the CIT

upheld the Department’s method of

accounting for the longer-term effects of

significant inflation on assets that were

purchased or placed into service before

the POR, but that were not recognized

as production costs until some time

during the POR. The CIT also rejected

Asocolflores’ argument that, where the

Department adjusts fixed asset costs for

inflation, it must also recognize the

monetary correction for inflationary

effects arising within the POR. See Budd

Co. v. United States, 773 F. Supp. 1549

(CIT 1991) (holding that full accounting

for inflation is neither necessary nor

possible).

Comment 8: Asocolflores argues that

the Department should adjust the CV in

the final results by either excluding an

amount allocable to the actual cost of

financing trade accounts receivable or

by reducing the CV by an amount for

imputed credit expense. Citing

Amended Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Silicon

Metal from Brazil, 62 FR 54087, 54091

(October 17, 1997) (Silicon Metal from

Brazil), Asocolflores states that the

Department recently acknowledged that

an inaccurate result arises when

comparing the CV inclusive of all actual

financing costs to a U.S. price exclusive

of imputed credit costs. Asocolflores

charges that the Department’s failure to

make such an adjustment in the instant

case results in an unfair comparison of

U.S. price to CV.

Asocolflores contends that it was the

Department’s practice prior to the Ninth

Review Final Results to include in the

CV interest expense only the portion of

respondents’ borrowing costs associated

with production. Asocolflores states that

the Department either should reduce the

CV interest expense by the ratio of

accounts receivable to total assets or it

should make a circumstance-of-sale

(COS) adjustment to CV. Asocolflores

argues that by including all actual

financing expenses in the CV, the

Department included the cost of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31729

financing sales to all markets. Because

a majority of respondents’ sales are

made to the United States, Asocolflores

suggests that the Department use the

imputed credit expenses on U.S. sales as

a COS adjustment. Specifically,

Asocolflores recommends that the

Department use the percentage of U.S.

price attributable to credit expense on a

customer-specific basis as the

adjustment to the CV.

The FTC asserts that the cases cited

by Asocolflores show that it is the

Department’s practice to use only home

market imputed credit expenses as a

COS adjustment. In the instant case,

however, the FTC states that the

Department should not make a COS

adjustment to CV because there are no

home market credit costs associated

with Colombia’s non-viable market.

Additionally, the FTC argues that on

CEP sales, the U.S. importer incurs the

U.S. credit expenses rather than the

producer. Because the reported CV

interest expense does not include these

costs, the FTC argues, it would be

inappropriate to deduct them from CV.

Department’s Position: Since the

adoption of the URAA, we no longer

make a reduction to interest expense to

account for the percentage of total assets

accounted for by accounts receivable

because we no longer include an

amount for imputed credit in the CV.

However, we agree with the parties that

it is our practice to make a COS

adjustment for differences in credit

costs between the home and U.S.

markets in the calculation of CV. See,

e.g., Silicon Metal from Brazil; Certain

Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 13622,

13624 (Comment 5) (March 20, 1998).

Addressing this same issue in Ninth

Review Final Results at Comment 24, we

explained that:

It is no longer appropriate to do as

Asocolflores suggests and reduce actual

interest expense * * *. Any differences in

credit expense between the U.S. and foreign

market are taken into account as a

circumstance of sale adjustment, but not as

part of the actual calculation of net interest

expense incurred for the product.

The Department’s practice is to reduce

CV by home market imputed credit

expenses. See, e.g., Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rods from France: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 7206,

7209 (February 18, 1997). However,

respondents reported no home market

credit expenses. Thus, as in the

Preliminary Results and in the Ninth

Review Final Results, we have reduced

CV by home market credit expenses of

zero as a COS adjustment for these final

results.

Comment 9: Asocolflores argues that

the Department’s use of the profit rate

of Compania Nacional de Chocolates

S.A. (CNC), a Colombian producer of

chocolate and other processed

agricultural products, as FA in the

calculation of CV is inconsistent with

the Act. Asocolflores contends that for

those selected respondents whose home

market sales of export quality flowers

were made below cost (i.e., zero profit),

the Department should use the profit

rate of zero pursuant to section

773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. With respect

to the remaining respondents,

Asocolflores argues that the application

of the ‘‘profit cap’’ described in section

773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act is mandatory.

Therefore, Asocolflores claims that

because none of the responding

companies had profits on sales of

flowers in the home market, the profit

cap applicable to all selected

respondents must be zero.

Asocolflores states that basic

principles of statutory construction

preclude the Department from

construing the Act as requiring profit to

be a positive amount. Asocolflores

points out that the methodologies of

calculating profit set forth in sections

773(e)(2)(A) and 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the

Act specifically include an ordinary

course of trade test, which by its terms

excludes certain below cost sales and

ensures that the profit margins using

these methodologies are above zero.

Asocolflores argues that by omitting the

ordinary course of trade test in sections

773(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii) of the Act, while

including it in the methodologies under

other sections as above, Congress must

have intended that the profit rate is not

required to be above zero. Asocolflores

also contends that in other sections of

the Act where the Department is

required to calculate an amount for

profit, such as sections 772(d) and (f),

which relate to an adjustment to CEP for

profit allocable to certain expenses

incurred in the United States, the

Department has not construed the Act as

requiring a positive profit figure.

Asocolflores argues the Department’s

reasoning, as explained in the Ninth

Review Final Results, that the profit

figure used cannot be zero and must be

positive is flawed and contrary to the

Act and the SAA. Asocolflores states

that by noting that for ‘‘below-cost sales

* * * the profit is zero,’’ the SAA (on

page 169) makes clear that while profit

cannot be a negative number, it is zero

when all sales are below cost. Citing to

the same page of the SAA, Asocolflores

contends that the statement that CV

‘‘must include an amount * * * for

profit’’ in no way precludes the

‘‘amount’’ from being zero. Asocolflores

argues that in Shop Towels from

Bangladesh; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 55957 (October 30, 1996)

(Shop Towels from Bangladesh), and

Bicycles from the People’s Republic of

China; Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 61 FR

19026 (April 30, 1996) (Bicycles from

the PRC), the Department included zero

profit for the companies that had shown

losses in deriving the average of the

profit rates to be used in calculating CV.

Asocolflores also cites to three

initiations of antidumping duty

investigations where the Department

used zero as the profit in the calculation

of CV: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Clad Steel Plate from

Japan, 60 FR 54666 (October 25, 1995);

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Large Newspaper Printing

Presses and Components Thereof,

Whether Assembled or Unassembled,

from Germany and Japan, 60 FR 38546

(July 27, 1995); and Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation: LightWalled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from

Mexico, 60 FR 20963 (April 28, 1995).

Asocolflores argues that the exception

allowed in the SAA to the profit cap

applies only when, ‘‘due to the absence

of data,’’ the Department cannot

calculate the profit cap. Here,

Asocolflores contends, there is no

absence of data; the data merely indicate

that the profit rate is zero.

Asocolflores further argues that the

use of CNC’s profit rate is inconsistent

with the purpose of the Act and violates

due process. According to Asocolflores,

the profit rate used is arbitrary,

unpredictable and random, thereby

providing the Colombian producers of

flowers no basis on which to price their

products to avoid dumping.

Asocolflores contends that although

there is no evidence of any similarity

between the Colombian market for

chocolate and the Colombian market for

fresh cut flowers, dumping is arbitrarily

found by the Department in any month

in which the Colombian flower grower

does not earn a profit margin equal to

the annual profit margin earned by CNC.

The FTC counters that the Department

correctly interpreted the Act and SAA

in determining that the profit must be a

positive amount. The FTC argues that

because respondents’ home market sales

consist of culls, not export quality

flowers, such sales are neither a ‘‘foreign

like product’’ nor ‘‘in the ordinary

course of trade’’ as described in the Act.

As such, the FTC contends that such

sales cannot be used as the basis for

profit pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(A) or
31730 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The FTC further

claims that the ‘‘fair sales price’’

described at page 171 of the SAA cannot

be at price levels which lack profit

thereby not providing any return on

investment.

Where home market sales of the

‘‘same general category of products’’

include sales of culls, the FTC argues

there is insufficient basis for calculating

the profit cap. Because culls are treated

as by-products in the Department’s

calculations and are assigned a cost

basis of zero, the FTC argues that the

profit rate on such sales would be equal

to the full revenue received. Although

section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act does

not impose the ‘‘ordinary course’’

constraint on sales within the ‘‘same

general category,’’ the FTC contends

that Congress could not have intended

for cull sales to be rejected under 773(b)

or 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act but then to be

accepted under 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) as the

basis for calculating profits or the profit

cap. Department’s Position: We disagree

with Asocolflores. Although the URAA

eliminated the use of a minimum profit

rate, the presumption of a profit element

in the calculation of CV was not

eliminated. The SAA (at page 169)

states: ‘‘Because CV serves as a proxy for

a sales price, and because a fair sales

price would recover [selling, general

and administrative (SG&A)] expenses

and would include an element of profit,

CV must include an amount for SG&A

expenses and for profit.’’ We find that

‘‘a fair sales price,’’ as intended by the

SAA, is a price that necessarily includes

a positive amount for profit, therefore

providing a return on investment.

Asocolflores’ argument that the

Department has used a zero profit figure

in the calculation of profit pursuant to

other sections of the Act such as 772(d)

and (f) which refer to CEP profit is

inapplicable. This adjustment to CEP

represents a portion of the company’s

total actual profit allocable to economic

activities incurred in the United States,

which may be zero.

We also disagree with Asocolflores’

argument that a zero rate of profit would

be consistent with Shop Towels from

Bangladesh and Bicycles from the PRC.

An average that includes some zeroes

but still yields a positive number, as

was the case in Shop Towels from

Bangladesh and Bicycles from the PRC,

is different from using a profit rate of

zero. We also find that Asocolflores’

reliance on the three initiations is

misplaced. Given the general constraints

in the availability of data in the

initiation stage of an investigation, the

Department’s use of a zero profit figure

was reasonable in that it was the most

conservative approach.

By providing three alternative

methodologies for calculating CV profit

in section 773(e)(2)(B), the Act enables

the Department to use an overall

positive profit rate whenever the

calculation of CV profit under section

773(e)(2)(A) is not appropriate. The

inclusion of a positive profit rate is

consistent with the Department’s past

practice. See, e.g., Silicomanganese

from Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 37869, 37877 (July 15,

1997) (‘‘[I]f a company has no home

market profit or has incurred losses in

the home market, the Department is not

instructed to ignore the profit element,

include a zero profit or even consider

the inclusion of a loss; rather, the

Department is directed to find an

alternative home market profit.’’).

Consistent with our practice in the

Ninth Review Final Results, we have

continued to use CNC’s profit rate since

there is no information on the record

that would enable us to calculate a

home market profit rate on the same

general category of merchandise as

flowers or a profit cap. As discussed

above, a profit rate of zero is not

appropriate for use in calculating CV;

therefore, we do not have appropriate

information to use as the basis for a

profit cap. Accordingly, we have

applied the alternative of section

773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act on the basis

of ‘‘the facts available,’’ as instructed by

the SAA at 171.

Comment 11: The FTC maintains that

the Department’s use of CNC’s profit

rate is inappropriate. The FTC asserts

that because CNC’s products are

primarily processed agricultural

products, they do not entail the same

risks of perishability and, therefore,

investors would expect a different

(lower) rate of return on equity. Instead,

the FTC urges the Department to base

profit upon the projected return on

equity of Banco Ganadero, a Colombian

bank that, in 1994, made approximately

23.06 percent of its loans to the

agricultural sector. The FTC contends

that this bank, whose profitability is

based on the experience of its

borrowers, is a better gauge of the return

that would need to be earned by

producers in the Colombian agricultural

sector than a chocolate manufacturer.

In the alternative, the FTC argues that

the Department should base the profit

rate on the third-country sales of

Colombian flower growers. While noting

that the court in Asociacion Colombiana

has affirmed the Department’s rejection

of third-country sales as the basis for

profit in prior reviews, the FTC asserts

that section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act,

as amended by the URAA, explicitly

provides the Department the authority

to use ‘‘any reasonable method’’ to

calculate profit where other alternative

bases are not available. As such, the

FTC draws a distinction with the court

decision, which arose under the preURAA law. The FTC further argues that

because profit is determined on an

annual basis, the Department’s

reasoning in rejecting third-country

sales as basis of determining NV, i.e.,

differences in price patterns due to

different demand, does not apply in the

context of calculating profit. The FTC

asserts that third-country profits

realized by respondents are more

closely related to the foreign like

product or general category of

merchandise and better reflect the profit

of the specific respondents. According

to the FTC, the use of third-country

profits is appropriate since dumping in

the United States is made possible by

profits earned from higher prices

charged in third-country markets such

as Europe.

Asocolflores disagrees with the

suggestion of basing the profit rate on

the Colombian bank’s rate of equity.

According to Asocolflores, a return on

equity, which is equal to a company’s

total profits divided by its total equity,

is fundamentally different from a profit

rate, which is a rate applicable to the

sale of goods. Asocolflores also argues

that there is no evidence that the

profitability of Banco Ganadero, whose

product is a service rather than goods,

is in any way representative of the

profitability of the agricultural sector in

Colombia.

With respect to the use of thirdcountry profit, Asocolflores asserts that

the third-country profit margin

presented by the FTC should be rejected

because the FTC’s calculation ignores

expenses such as movement charges and

selling expenses. Referring to section

351.405(b)(1) of the Department’s final

regulations as well as the proposed

regulations, Asocolflores contends that

the Department, having rejected thirdcountry prices as the basis for NV, is not

permitted to use third-country profit as

the basis for CV profit. Asocolflores

maintains that no respondents are using

home market profits or third-country

profits to subsidize U.S. sales, which are

profitable on their own.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the FTC. As stated by Asocolflores,

we find that the rate of return on equity

of a financial institution is not

appropriate for this case. While we were

unable to locate a profit rate on homemarket sales for a Colombian producer

of merchandise in the same general

category of flowers, we determine that

using the profit rate of CNC, a
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31731

Colombian producer of processed

agricultural goods, is more appropriate

than the rate of return on equity of a

Colombian bank.

We also reject the FTC’s suggestion

that we base profit on third-country

sales. As we have found third-country

sales to be an inappropriate basis for

calculating NV, it would likewise be

inappropriate to base CV profit on thirdcountry sales. Accordingly, consistent

with our practice in Ninth Review Final

Results, we have used CNC’s profit rate

as FA in calculating CV profit.

Comment 12: The FTC argues that if

the Department continues using CNC

data to calculate CV profit in the final

results, the Department should either

adjust the calculation of CNC’s profit

rate by excluding SG&A expenses or add

CNC’s SG&A expenses to CV. The FTC

contends that section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of

the Act does not distinguish SG&A from

profit or contemplate that these values

will come from different sources. The

FTC states that the reason respondents

lack home market selling expenses is

the same reason that they lack profits:

sales in the home market are not in the

ordinary course of trade. The FTC notes

that while respondents had neither

profit nor selling expenses in the home

market, CNC has both profits and selling

expenses. If profits are determined using

CNC’s profit rate, according to the FTC,

it follows that selling expenses should

be determined likewise in order to

reflect the selling expenses that would

have been incurred if respondents had

home market sales in the ordinary

course of trade.

The FTC further argues that to the

extent selling expenses incurred with

respect to export sales are incurred in

the home market and are not deducted

from CV, then the CEP sales will reflect

selling activities that are not reflected in

CV. The FTC argues that some proxy for

selling expenses must be identified or

there is an inconsistency between the

LOT for actual sales and CV.

Asocolflores argues that it would be

inappropriate to recalculate CNC’s

profitability by assuming it did not

incur costs which, in fact, it did incur.

Asocolflores notes that profitability is

dependent on costs being incurred to

generate revenues, and that the FTC is

incorrect in its assertion that if a

company reduces expenditures the

result will be a higher level of

profitability.

Asocolflores also contends that there

is no legal basis for adding hypothetical

selling expenses to CV when

respondents incurred no actual selling

expenses on their home market sales.

Asocolflores asserts that, contrary to the

FTC’s argument, there is no statutory

preference for using the same source of

data for SG&A and profits.

Asocolflores asserts that the FTC’s

argument that growers incur no selling

expenses in the home market because

home market sales are outside the

ordinary course of trade is not relevant

because sections 773(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii)

of the Act contain no ordinary course of

trade test. Asocolflores contends that

the Department is correct to use the

actual amount of selling expenses in the

home market in calculating CV.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the FTC that we should adjust CV

profit or CV selling expenses to account

for selling expenses incurred by CNC.

As noted by Asocolflores, there is no

requirement or preference that profit

and SG&A expenses be drawn from the

same source. The Department has used

different sources for selling expenses

and for profit in other cases where

respondents had no profitable home

market sales. See, e.g., Shop Towels

From Bangladesh, 61 FR at 55959.

Moreover, we are not persuaded by the

FTC’s argument that a potential

difference in LOT compels the inclusion

of the selling expenses of CNC or

another proxy. Section 773(e)(2)(B) of

the Act, which describes the sources on

which the Department may base selling

expenses for determining CV, does not

require us to reject the use of the

respondent’s actual selling expenses

due to a potential difference in LOT. See

also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings,

Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 63 FR 2557, 2578 (January 15,

1998 ) (‘‘We base home market LOTs on

a respondent’s actual experience in

selling in the home market. * * *

[T]here is no statutory basis for us to

‘‘construct’’ levels in the home market

or elsewhere.’’). Accordingly, we based

selling expenses on the actual amounts

incurred and realized by the

respondents in selling in the home

market (i.e., zero) for purposes of

calculating CV.

Comment 13: Asocolflores claims that

the Department should compare the

annual average CV with annual average

U.S. prices, in light of the extreme

seasonality of U.S. demand and prices.

The FTC argues that the Department has

consistently rejected Asocolflores’

position that annual averages should be

used when comparing CV with U.S.

price. The FTC further maintains that

use of annual averages as the basis for

CV and U.S. price would eliminate the

seasonality issue and allow the

Department to use viable third-country

market prices as the basis of

determining NV.

Department’s Position: In accordance

with our past practice and as affirmed

by the CIT, we have continued to use

monthly weighted averages in

calculating CV and U.S. price. See

Floral Trade Council v. United States,

775 F. Supp. 1492, 1499–1501 (CIT

1991). By relying on monthly averages,

we are able to use the exporters’ actual

price information, which is often

available only on a monthly basis. As in

prior reviews, we have not adopted

Asocolflores’ suggestion that we move

to annual averages. In our view, use of

an annual average would allow

respondents to dump during periods of

low demand, a result that is not

consistent with the Act.

Company Specific Comments

Comment 14: Asocolflores argues that

because Tuchany’s U.S. sales were

mainly made through unaffiliated U.S.

importers, the Department should

deduct freight and commissions before

computing Tuchany’s imputed credit

expense on sales to unaffiliated

customers. Asocolflores explains that

when an exporter sells through an

unaffiliated consignment importer, or,

as with Tuchany, makes EP sales with

a commission payable, it finances a

receivable equal to the sales value less

the commission and less any

international freight. Asocolflores

argues that because the exporter does

not finance the international freight or

commission, no credit expense should

be imputed on these amounts.

The FTC contends that because

Asocolflores does not cite any authority

in support of its position, the

Department should reject its argument.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Asocolflores. For these final results, we

calculated credit expenses net of

commission and international freight.

While Asocolflores has not cited to any

statutory authority in support of its

credit calculation formula, we find that

it has nonetheless articulated reasonable

grounds that are consistent with the

Department’s practice of calculating

imputed credit on the basis of net

accounts receivable.

Comment 15: The FTC contends that

the Department should use AFA to

determine Tuchany’s cost for the review

period because Tuchany failed to

supply complete cost data. The FTC

asserts that Tuchany is among the top

ten groups of exporters in this review

and is well versed in antidumping

procedures. As such, the FTC argues

that Tuchany should have been aware of
31732 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

its obligation to collect and maintain the

necessary cost data.

Asocolflores claims that at the time

the questionnaires were issued in the

current review, three of the Tuchany

Group companies had already gone out

of business and had fired all employees.

Asocolfores further explains that

because the cost data were kept

individually by each of the companies,

the cost data for the defunct companies

were no longer available. Despite the

best efforts of two remaining companies,

Xue and Tikiya, Asocolflores claims that

they were unable to recover the cost

data for the defunct companies. Given

the circumstances and the effort made

by Xue and Tikiya to obtain the cost

data of the other three companies,

Asocolflores argues that the Tuchany

Group as a whole should not be

penalized by the application of AFA.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Asocolflores. We believe that it is

inappropriate to draw adverse

inferences from Xue’s and Tikiya’s

failure to provide cost data for the three

defunct companies of the Tuchany

Group under these circumstances. The

descriptions provided by Tuchany with

respect to the efforts to locate the

missing information and the difficulties

that arose from the dissolution of the

group demonstrate these two companies

have acted to the best of their ability to

respond to our request for cost

information. Therefore, we believe that

it is appropriate to use the standard

carnation CV data for the two farms for

which we have cost data to calculate a

margin for standard carnations and also

apply this same margin to the sales of

other flower types.

Comment 16: Asocolflores claims that

while it may be reasonable to allocate

returns for companies that do not match

returns to the month of the initial sale,

the Department should not have

disregarded the monthly reported

returns for Clavecol and the Caicedo

groups because both groups report their

returns in the month that the flowers

subject to the claim were sold, not in the

month the claim was made. Given these

circumstances, Asocolflores argues that

the reported data relating to returns

more accurately reflect the relevant

month for the returns than the

Department’s methodology. Asocolflores

further states that the Department’s

reallocation introduces an unnecessary

distortion, since the monthly average

price for flowers is highly variable over

the POR.

The FTC argues that there is no legal

authority or agency precedent to

support a change in the Department’s

return methodology here. According to

the FTC, Caicedo’s and Clavecol’s U.S.

prices and adjustment for returns

through numerous past reviews have

been calculated in the same manner as

all other respondents. Moreover, the

FTC contends that the verification

reports do not show that the reporting

methodology for returns is accurate or

complete and some returns may

represent a credit to customers when the

market is slow, rather than by reason of

the quality of the flowers.

Department’s Position: We agree with

Asocolflores and have made appropriate

changes to our calculation of these final

results for Caicedo and Clavecol. Since

the Ninth Review Final Results, the

Department’s practice has been to

allocate returns over the POR because

most companies report returns in the

month the claim was made, not in the

month the flowers were initially sold.

However, because Caicedo and Clavecol

report their returns in the month the

flowers were initially sold, their

reporting of returns is more accurate

than an allocation. Therefore, it is

inappropriate to allocate their returns

over the POR.

Although not specifically detailed in

the verification report, the accuracy of

Caicedo’s return methodology was fully

verified in the present review. In

general, verification reports tend to

place greater emphasis on describing

any inconsistencies found at

verification, rather than restating the

information from the responses that are

verified to be accurate. Clavecol was not

verified in the present review, and

because we have no reason to believe

that its return methodology is

inaccurate, we have accepted Clavecol’s

return values as reported.

Comment 17: Asocolflores asserts that

the additional interest expenses

associated with the freeze of Floraterra’s

U.S. bank accounts during the POR

qualify as an excludable extraordinary

expense that are unrelated to the

production or sale of flowers. According

to Asocolflores, the additional costs are

‘‘unusual in nature’’ and ‘‘infrequent in

occurrence,’’ and, thereby meet the

Department’s requirements of

extraordinary expenses that are to be

excluded from COP or CV. Asocolflores

refers to Roses from Ecuador, where the

Department excluded expenses incurred

due to wind damage from the CV

calculation.

Asocolflores further argues that the

Department routinely excludes costs

associated with defending against U.S.

Government investigations unrelated to

a company’s normal business

operations. See Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products

and Certain Cut to Length Carbon Steel

Plate from Canada: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 63 FR 12725, 12731 (March 16,

1998). Because Floraterra’s increased

costs are analogous to the costs of

defending against an antidumping case,

Asocolflores contends that such costs

must be deducted.

The FTC rebuts that although the

seizure of assets may have been

unusual, it is not unusual in the

industry to have unexpected needs for

additional funds. Furthermore, the FTC

argues that Floraterra has not shown

that the allegedly extraordinary

expenses were treated as such in its

financial statements or other accounting

records. In light of the fact that

Floraterra did not separate such costs in

its financial statements, the FTC

contends that there is no basis to

construct a calculation that would

separate the financing costs Floraterra

would have incurred from those it

claims to be extraordinary.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Asocolflores’s contention that the

amounts incurred as described above

are extraordinary expenses and, as a

result, must be excluded from the

company’s reported costs. As the FTC

noted, Floraterra did not treat these

expenses as ‘‘extraordinary’’ items in its

own financial statements. Furthermore,

it is the Department’s practice to

include all interest expenses incurred

during the POR as part of operating

capital. As such, the additional interest

expenses incurred by the company are

properly included as a part of the cost

of the subject merchandise.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine the following percentage

weighted-average margins to exist for

the period March 1, 1996 through

February 28, 1997:

Selected Respondents

The following 10 groups of firms

(composed of 86 companies) were

selected as respondents and received

individual rates, as indicated below.

Percent

Agrodex Group ......................... 0.88

Agricola de las Mercedes

S.A.

Agricola el Retiro Ltda.

Agrodex Ltda.

Degaflores Ltda.

Flores Camino Real Ltda.

Flores Cuatro Esquinas

Ltda.

Flores de la Comuna Ltda.

Flores de Los Amigos

Ltda.

Flores de los Arrayanes

Ltda.

Flores de Mayo Ltda.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31733

Percent

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 Ltda.

Horticola Montecarlo Ltda.

Caicedo Group .......................... 3.66

Agrobosque S.A.

Andalucia S.A.

Aranjuez S.A.

Consorcio Agroindustrial

Colombiano S.A.

(CAICO)

Exportaciones Bochica

S.A.

Floral Ltda.

Flores del Cauca S.A.

Productos el Rosal S.A.

Productos el Zorro S.A.

Claveles Colombianos Group ... 0.86

Claveles Colombianos

Ltda.

Elegant Flowers Ltda.

Fantasia Flowers Ltda.

Splendid Flowers Ltda.

Sun Flowers Ltda.

Cultivos Miramonte Group ........ 0.61

C.I. Colombiana de Bouquets S.A.

Cultivos Miramonte S.A.

Flores Mocari S.A.

Floraterra Group ....................... 6.10

Floraterra S.A.

Flores Casablanca S.A.

Flores Novaterra Ltda.

Flores San Mateo S.A.

Siete Flores S.A.

Florex Group ............................. 1.17

Agricola Guacari S.A.

Agricola el Castillo

Flores San Joaquin

Flores Altamira S.A.

Flores de Exportacion S.A.

Flores Primavera S.A.

Guacatay Group ....................... 2.49

Agricola Cunday S.A.

Agricola Guacatay S.A.

Agricola Ventura

Jardines Bacata Ltda.

Multiflora Comercializadora

Internacional S.A.

Queens Flowers Group ............ 0.11

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 Tandil

Flores la Mana

Flores las Acacias Ltda.

Flores la Valvanera Ltda.

Flores Jayvana

Percent

Flores Ubate Ltda.

Jardines de Chia Ltda.

Jardines Fredonia Ltda.

M.G. Consultores Ltda.

Mountain Roses

Queens Flowers de Colombia Ltda.

Quality Flowers S.A.

Florval S.A. (Floval)

Jardines del Rosal

Tinzuque Group ........................ 1.23

Tinzuque Ltda.

Catu S.A.

Tuchany Group ......................... 9.06

Tuchany S.A.

Flores Sibate

Flores Tikaya

Flores Munya

Flores Xue S.A.

Non-Selected Respondents

The following 338 companies were

not selected as respondents and will

receive a rate of 2.52 percent:

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia

Achalay

Aga Group

Agricola la Celestina

Agricola la Maria

Agricola Benilda Ltda.

Agrex de Oriente

Agricola Acevedo Ltda.

Agricola Altiplano

Agricola Arenales Ltda.

Agricola Bonanza Ltda.

Agricola Circasia Ltda.

Agricola de Occident

Agricola del Monte

Agricola el Cactus S.A.

Agricola el Redil

Agricola Guali S.A.

Agricola la Corsaria Ltda.

Agricola la Siberia

Agricola Las Cuadras Group

Agricola las Cuadras Ltda.

Flores de Hacaritama

Agricola Megaflor Ltda.

Agricola Yuldama

Agrocaribu Ltda.

Agro de Narino

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.

Celia Flowers

Passion Flowers

Primo Flowers

Temptation Flowers

Agroindustrial Madonna S.A.

Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.

Agromonte Ltda.

Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.

Agropecuaria la Marcela

Agropecuaria Mauricio

Agrorosas

Agrotabio Kent

Aguacarga

Alcala

Alstroflores Ltda.

Amoret

Ancas Ltda.

Andalucia

Andes Group

Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.

Flores de los Andes Ltda.

Flores Horizonte Ltda.

Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.

A.Q.

Arboles Azules Ltda.

Aspen Gardens Ltda.

Astro Ltda.

Becerra Castellanos y Cia.

Bojaca Group

Agricola Bojaca

Universal Flowers

Flores y Plantas Tropicales

Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.

Tropiflora

Cantarrana Group

Cantarrana Ltda.

Agricola los Venados Ltda.

Carcol Ltda.

Cienfuegos Group

Cienfuegos Ltda.

Flores la Conchita

Cigarral Group

Flores Cigarral

Flores Tayrona

Classic

Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.

Clavelez

Coexflor

Colibri Flowers Ltda.

Color Explosion

Combiflor

Consorcio Agroindustrial

Cota

Crest D’or

Crop S.A.

Cultiflores Ltda.

Cultivos Guameru

Cultivos Medellin Ltda.

Cultivos Tahami Ltda.

Cypress Valley

Daflor Ltda.

Degaflor

De La Pava Guevara E. Hijos Ltda.

Del Monte

Del Tropico Ltda.

Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.

Disagro

Diveragricola

Dynasty Roses Ltda.

El Antelio S.A.

Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen

Tantau)

El Milaro

El Tambo

El Timbul Ltda.

Envy Farms Group

Envy Farms

Flores Marandua Ltda.

Euroflora

Exoticas

Exotic Flowers

Exotico

Expoflora Ltda.

Exportadora

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

Ferson Trading

Flamingo Flowers

Flor Colombiana S.A.

Flora Bellisima

Flora Intercontinental

Floralex Ltda.
31734 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices

Floralex Ltda.

Flores el Puente Ltda.

Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.

Florandia Herrera Camacho & Cia.

Floreales Group

Floreales Ltda.

Kimbaya

Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.

Flores Abaco S.A.

Flores Acuarela S.A.

Flores Agromonte

Flores Aguila

Flores Colon Ltda.

Flores de la Sabana S.A.

Flores de Serrezuela S.A.

Flores de Suesca S.A.

Flores del Rio Group

Agricola Cardenal S.A.

Flores del Rio S.A.

Indigo S.A.

Flores El Molino S.A.

Flores El Zorro Ltda.

Flores la Cabanuela

Flores la Fragrancia

Flores la Gioconda

Flores la Lucerna

Flores la Macarena

Flores la Pampa

Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group

Santana

Flores las Caicas

Flores las Mesitas

Flores los Sauces

Flores Monserrate Ltda.

Flores Montecarlo

Flores Monteverde

Flores Palimana

Flores Ramo Ltda.

Flores S.A.

Flores Sagaro

Flores Saint Valentine

Flores Sairam Ltda.

Flores San Andres

Flores San Carlos

Flores San Juan S.A.

Flores Santa Fe Ltda.

Flores Santana

Flores Sausalito

Flores Selectas

Flores Silvestres

Flores Sindamanoi

Flores Suasuque

Flores Tenerife Ltda.

Flores Tiba S.A.

Flores Tocarinda

Flores Tomine Ltda.

Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group

Flores Tropicales Ltda.

Happy Candy Ltda.

Mercedes Ltda.

Rosas Colombianos Ltda.

Flores Urimaco

Flores Violette

Florexpo

Floricola

Floricola la Gaitana S.A.

Florimex Colombia Ltda.

Florisol

Florpacifico

Flor y Color

Flowers of the World/Rosa

Four Seasons

Fracolsa

Fresh Flowers

F. Salazar

Funza Group

Flores Alborada

Flores de Funza S.A.

Flores del Bosque Ltda.

Garden and Flowers Ltda.

German Ocampo

Granja

Green Flowers

Grupo el Jardin

Agricola el Jardin Ltda.

La Marotte S.A.

Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.

Gypso Flowers

Hacienda la Embarrada

Hacienda Matute

Hana/Hisa Group

Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.

Flores Tokai Hisa

Hernando Monroy

Horticultra Montecarlo

Horticultura de la Sasan

Horticultura El Molino

Hosa Group

Horticultura de la Sabana S.A.

HOSA Ltda.

Innovacion Andina S.A.

Minispray S.A.

Prohosa Ltda.

Illusion Flowers

Industria Santa Clara

Industrial Agricola

Industrial Terwengel Ltda.

Ingro Ltda.

Inverpalmas

Inversiones Almer Ltda.

Inversiones Bucarelia

Inversiones Cota

Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.

Inversiones Flores del Alto

Inversiones Maya, Ltda.

Inversiones Morcote

Inversiones Morrosquillo

Inversiones Playa

Inversiones & Producciones Tecnica

Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.

Inversiones Silma

Inversiones Sima

Inversiones Supala S.A.

Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.

Iturrama S.A.

Jardin de Carolina

Jardines Choconta

Jardines Darpu

Jardines Natalia Ltda.

Jardines Tocarema

Jardines de America

Jardines de Timana

J.M. Torres

Karla Flowers

Kingdom S.A.

La Colina

La Embairada

La Flores Ltda.

La Floresta

La Plazoleta Ltda.

Las Amalias Group

Las Amalias S.A.

Pompones Ltda.

La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.

Ramiflora Ltda.

Las Flores

Laura Flowers

L.H.

Linda Colombiana Ltda.

Loma Linda

Loreana Flowers

Los Geranios Ltda.

Luisa Flowers

Luisiana Farms

M. Alejandra

Manjui Ltda.

Mauricio Uribe

Maxima Farms Group

Agricola los Arboles S.A.

Colombian D.C. Flowers

Polo Flowers

Rainbow Flowers

Maxima Farms Inc.

Merastec

Monteverde Ltda.

Morcoto

Nasino

Natuflora Ltda./San Martin Bloque B

Olga Rincon

Oro Verde Group

Inversiones Miraflores S.A.

Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.

Otono (Agroindustrial Otono)

Papagayo Group

Agricola Papagayo Ltda.

Inversiones Calypso S.A.

Petalos de Colombia Ltda.

Pinar Guameru

Piracania

Pisochago Ltda.

Plantaciones Delta Ltda.

Plantas S.A.

Prismaflor

Propagar Plantas S.A.

Reme Salamanca

Rosa Bella

Rosaflor

Rosales de Colombia Ltda.

Rosales de Suba Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Group

Flores la Colmena Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.

Inversiones la Serena

Agricola la Capilla

Rosas y Jardines

Rose

Rosex Ltda.

Roselandia

San Ernesto

San Valentine

Sansa Flowers

Santa Rosa Group

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola La Ramada Ltda.

Santana Flowers Group

Santana Flowers Ltda.

Hacienda Curibital Ltda.

Inversiones Istra Ltda.

Sarena

Select Pro

Senda Brava Ltda.

Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.

Shila

Siempreviva

Soagro Group

Agricola el Mortino Ltda.

Flores Aguaclara Ltda.

Flores del Monte Ltda.

Flores la Estancia

Jaramillo y Daza

Solor Flores Ltda.

Starlight

Superflora Ltda.

Susca

Sweet Farms

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola la Ramada Ltda.

Tag Ltda.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices 31735

The Beall Company

The Rose

Tomino

Toto Flowers Group

Flores de Suesca S.A.

Toto Flowers

Tropical Garden

Uniflor Ltda.

Velez de Monchaux Group

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

Agroteusa

Victoria Flowers

Villa Cultivos Ltda.

Villa Diana

Vuelven Ltda.

Zipa Flowers

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated an importerspecific per-stem duty assessment rate

based on the ratio of the total amount of

AD duties calculated for the examined

sales made during the POR to the total

quantity of subject merchandise entered

during the POR. This rate will be

assessed uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions on each

exporter directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of these final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act, on or after the

publication date of these final results of

review: (1) The cash deposit rate for the

individually examined companies will

be the most recent rates as listed above,

except that for firms whose weightedaverage margins are less than 0.5

percent and therefore de minimis, the

Department shall require a zero deposit

of estimated antidumping duties; (2) the

cash deposit rate for non-selected

companies will be the weighted-average

of the cash deposit rates for the

individually examined companies; (3)

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; (4) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the producer is, the

cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the producer of the merchandise;

and (5) the cash deposit rate for all other

producers or exporters will be the ‘‘all

other’’ rate of 3.10 percent. This is the

rate established during the Less-ThanFair-Value (LTFV) investigation, as

amended in litigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402

(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of AD 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 AD duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of doubled AD duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This administrative review is issued

and published in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 2, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15349 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–818, A–489–805]

Certain Pasta From Italy and Turkey:

Notice of Extension of Time Limits for

Antidumping Duty; First Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Easton or John Brinkmann,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1777

and (202) 482–5288, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Postponement of Preliminary Results of

the First Administrative Reviews

On August 28, 1997, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) initiated

the first administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on certain

pasta from Italy and Turkey, covering

the period January 19, 1996, through

June 30, 1997 (62 FR 45621). Section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), requires the

Department to make a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review within 245 days after the last day

of the anniversary month of an order for

which a review is requested. The

original deadline for the preliminary

results of these reviews was April 2,

1998. However, when it is not

practicable to complete the review

within the time period, section

751(a)(3)(A) allows the Department to

extend this time period up to 365 days.

Accordingly, on January 28, 1998, the

Department extended the time limit for

completion of the preliminary results of

the administrative review by 90 days (63

FR 4218). The current extended

deadline for the preliminary results of

these reviews is July 1, 1998. We have

now concluded, however, that the full

120-day extension is necessary.

Accordingly, the Department is

extending the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results of these

administrative reviews by 30 additional

days, or until July 31, 1998. We plan to

issue the final results of these

administrative reviews within 120 days

after publication of the preliminary

results.

These extensions are in accordance

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Dated: June 3, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–15473 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–814]

Amended Order and Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel,

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe

From Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amendment to final

determination of antidumping duty

investigation in accordance with

decision upon remand.

SUMMARY: On August 29, 1997, the

United States Court of International

Trade (the CIT) remanded to the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) the final determination in

the antidumping duty investigation of