Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41789

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

Therefore, we disregarded the belowcost sales. Where all sales of a specific

product were at prices below the COP,

we disregarded all sales of that product.

We found that all of NFP’s Brazilian

sales were at prices below the COP.

Thus, in the absence of any above-cost

Brazilian sales, we compared

constructed export prices to CV in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of NFP’s cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A, interest, and U.S.

packing costs. We made the same

adjustments to NFP’s reported costs for

the CV calculation as we made for the

COP calculation.

Because there were no above-cost

Brazilian sales and hence no actual

company-specific profit data available

for NFP’s sales of the foreign like

product to Brazil, we calculated profit

expenses in accordance with section

773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and the SAA.

Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) states that profit

may be determined under any

reasonable method with the appropriate

‘‘profit cap.’’ The SAA, however,

provides that where, due to the absence

of data, the Department cannot

determine amounts for profit under

alternatives (i) or (ii) of section

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act or a ‘‘profit cap’’

under alternative (iii) of section

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department

may apply alternative (iii) on the basis

of the facts available (SAA at 841). In

this case, we are unable to determine an

amount for profit under alternatives (i)

or (ii), or a ‘‘profit cap’’ under

alternative (iii) because we do not have

actual amounts incurred by NFP on

sales of merchandise in the same

general category as the subject

merchandise and because NFP is the

only producer subject to this

investigation. Therefore, as facts

availabe under section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)

of the Act, for NFP’s profit we are using

the 1996 profit margin for Ianasafrut

S.A., a leading Chilean fruit and

vegetable producer. We believe this data

is a reasonable surrogate for NFP’s profit

because it is based upon a Chilean

producer’s experience on sales of the

same general category as the subject

merchandise for a period in which there

was no alleged dumping. For SG&A, we

have used NFP’s actual expenses

incurred in Chile on Brazilian sales

because this data reflects NFP’s actual

experience in selling the foreign like

product.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We

deducted from CV the amount of

indirect selling expenses capped by the

amount of the U.S. commissions.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

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

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank,

in accordance with section 773A of the

Act.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Nature’s Farm Products (Chile)

S.A. .......................................... 142.43

All Others .................................... 142.43

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than September

8, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later than

September 11, 1998. A list of authorities

used and an executive summary of

issues should accompany any briefs

submitted to the Department. Such

summary should be limited to five pages

total, including footnotes. In accordance

with section 774 of the Act, we will

hold a public hearing, if requested, to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the

hearing will be held on September 15,

1998, time and room to be determined,

at the U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties

should confirm by telephone the time,

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours

before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by October 13, 1998.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: July 27, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–20910 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–813]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From

India

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine Johnson or David J.

Goldberger, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–4136,

respectively.
41790 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351, 62 FR

27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain preserved mushrooms

(‘‘mushrooms’’) from India are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Investigations: Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From Chile,

India, Indonesia, and the People’s

Republic of China (63 FR 5360,

February 2, 1998)), the following events

have occurred:

During January and February 1998,

the Department requested information

from the U.S. Embassy in India to

identify producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise. During February

1998, the Department also requested

and received comments from the

petitioners and potential respondents

regarding the model matching criteria.

On February 27, 1998, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.

Also on February 27, 1998, the

Department issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to Agro Dutch Foods

(India) (‘‘Agro Dutch’’), Alpine Biotech

Ltd. (‘‘Alpine Biotech’’), Flex Foods,

Ltd., Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd.

(‘‘Mandeep’’), Ponds India Ltd.

(‘‘Ponds’’), Premier Mushrooms Ltd.

(India) (‘‘Premier’’), Saptarishi Agro

Industries, Ltd. (‘‘Saptarishi’’), and

Transchem, Ltd. (‘‘Transchem’’) .

On March 30, 1998, the Department

issued a Federal Register notice setting

aside a period for interested parties to

raise issues regarding product coverage.

(See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from

Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s

Republic of China: Comments Regarding

Product Coverage, 63 FR 16971 (April 7,

1998). No parties to this investigation

filed comments regarding product

coverage.

In March and April 1998, the

Department received responses to

Section A of the questionnaire from

Agro Dutch, Flex Foods, Ponds,

Premier, Transchem, and Saptarishi. In

addition, the Department received a

March 14, 1998, letter from Weikfeld

Agro Products Ltd., stating that it did

not sell the subject merchandise to the

United States during 1997.

On April 1, 1998, the petitioners in

this investigation, L.K. Bowman, Inc.,

Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc.,

Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mount

Laurel Canning Corp., Mushroom

Canning Company, Sunny Dell Foods,

Inc., and United Canning Corp.,

submitted a timely allegation pursuant

to section 773(b) of the Act that Agro

Dutch, Ponds and Transchem had made

sales in the third country market at less

than the COP. (These three companies

reported in their Section A responses

that their home markets were not

viable). Our analysis of the allegation

indicated that there were reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that Agro

Dutch, Ponds, and Transchem sold

mushrooms in the third country market

at prices at less than the COP.

Accordingly, we initiated COP

investigations with respect to Agro

Dutch, Ponds and Transchem pursuant

to section 773(b) of the Act (see

Memorandum from Team to Louis

Apple, Office Director, dated April 6,

1998).

On April 14, 1998, pursuant to section

777A(c) of the Act, the Department

determined that, due to the large

number of exporters/producers of the

subject merchandise, it would limit the

number of mandatory respondents in

this investigation. The Department

determined that the resources available

to it for this investigation and the three

companion investigations limited our

ability to analyze any more than the

responses of the two largest exporters/

producers of the subject merchandise in

this investigation. Based on the Section

A questionnaire responses, the

Department selected the two largest

companies, Agro Dutch and Ponds, to be

the mandatory respondents in this

proceeding (see Memorandum to Louis

Apple, dated April 14, 1998).

On April 30, 1998, the Department

requested comments as to whether it

should consider ‘‘whole mushroom

size’’ as a physical characteristic for its

model matching methodology. On May

14, the petitioners and Ponds responded

to the Department’s request for

information. Agro Dutch responded to

the Department’s request for

information in its questionnaire

responses. On June 4, 1998, petitioners

filed rebuttal comments on this issue.

We received responses to Sections B,

C and D of the questionnaire from Agro

Dutch, Flex Foods, and Ponds in April

1998. We issued supplemental

questionnaires for Sections A, B, C, and

D to Agro Dutch and Ponds in May 1998

and received responses to these

questionnaires in June 1998.

On May 1, 1998, pursuant to section

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the petitioners

made a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination for forty

days. We granted this request and, on

May 8, 1998, we postponed the

preliminary determination until no later

than July 27, 1998. (See 63 FR 27264,

May 18, 1998).

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the

Act, on July 20, 1998, Agro Dutch

requested that, in the event of an

affirmative preliminary determination

in this investigation, the Department

postpone its final determination until

not later than 135 days after the date of

the publication of an affirmative

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. On July 22, 1998, Agro

Dutch amended its request to include a

request to extend the provisional

measures to not more than six months.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b),

because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2) Agro

Dutch accounts for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling

reasons for denial exist, we are granting

the respondent’s request and are

postponing the final determination until

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Suspension of liquidation will

be extended accordingly. On July 23,

1998, Pond’s made the same request.

Facts Available

We did not receive a questionnaire

response from either Alpine Biotech or

Mandeep. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act

provides that ‘‘if an interested party or

any other person—(A) withholds

information that has been requested by

the administering authority; (B) fails to

provide such information by the

deadlines for the submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)

and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly

impedes a proceeding under this title; or

(D) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified as

provided in section 782(i), the

administering authority * * * shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41791

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’ Alpine Biotech and Mandeep

failed to respond to the Department’s

questionnaires. Accordingly, we have

determined that use of facts available is

appropriate for both respondents.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that adverse inferences may be used

when a party has failed to cooperate by

not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information.

The exporters that decided not to

respond in any form to the Department’s

questionnaire failed to act to the best of

their ability in this investigation. Thus,

the Department has determined that, in

selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, an adverse

inference is warranted.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

where the Department selects from

among the facts otherwise available and

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ such

as the petition, the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that

information from independent sources

reasonably at the Department’s disposal.

The Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994)

(hereinafter, the ‘‘SAA’’) states that

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that

the information used has probative

value. See SAA at 870.

In this proceeding, we considered the

petition as the most appropriate

information on the record to form the

basis for a dumping calculation for these

uncooperative respondents. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, we sought to corroborate the data

contained in the petition. We reviewed

the adequacy and accuracy of the

information in the petition during our

pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to

the extent appropriate information was

available for this purpose (e.g., import

statistics and foreign market research

reports). See Notice of Initiation.

For purposes of the preliminary

determination, we attempted to

corroborate the information in the

petition. We reexamined the export

price and constructed value data (the

NV basis for the highest petition

margins) provided in the petition for the

highest margin calculation in light of

information obtained during the

investigation and, to the extent that the

data could be corroborated, found that

it continues to be of probative value,

except for the direct materials, labor,

and variable overhead costs in the

petition constructed value calculation.

When compared to the price

information for these items reported by

the respondents for the most

comparable merchandise, we found the

petition costs to be significantly

different. In this case, we determined

that it was appropriate make an

adjustment in those values in order to

derive a margin that is reliable, relevant,

and sufficiently adverse so as to

effectuate the statutory purposes of the

adverse facts available rule to induce

respondents to provide the Department

with complete and accurate information

in a timely manner. We recalculated the

constructed value in the petition using

the highest costs for these items

reported by a respondent, and compared

that constructed value to the export

price used for the highest margin in the

petition in order to calculate a margin

for the two uncooperative respondents.

The result is 243.87 percent (see

Memorandum to the File dated July 27,

1998).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain preserved

mushrooms whether imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

The preserved mushrooms covered

under this investigation are the species

Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus

bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved mushrooms’’ refer

to mushrooms that have been prepared

or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and

sometimes slicing or cutting. These

mushrooms are then packed and heated

in containers including but not limited

to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid

medium, including but not limited to

water, brine, butter or butter sauce.

Preserved mushrooms may be imported

whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and

pieces. Included within the scope of the

investigation are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms,

which are presalted and packed in a

heavy salt solution to provisionally

preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this

investigation are the following: (1) all

other species of mushroom including

straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and

chilled mushrooms, including

‘‘refrigerated’’ or ‘‘quick blanched

mushrooms’; (3) dried mushrooms; (4)

frozen mushrooms; and (5) ‘‘marinated,’’

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

which are prepared or preserved by

means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may

contain oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

subheadings 2003.10.27, 2003.10.31,

2003.10.37, 2003.10.43, 2003.10.47,

2003.10.53, and 0711.90.4000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTS’’). Although the

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The POI is January 1, 1997 through

December 31, 1997.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by Agro Dutch and Ponds

covered by the description in the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, above,

and sold by Agro Dutch to the

Netherlands and sold by Ponds to

Denmark (see ‘‘Home Market Viability’’

section below) during the POI to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the third country to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the

most similar foreign like product. For

those U.S. sales of mushrooms for

which there were no comparable third

country sales in the ordinary course of

trade (i.e., above-cost) , we compared

U.S. sales to constructed value (‘‘CV’’).

In making the product comparisons,

we matched foreign like products based

on the physical characteristics reported

by the respondents in the following

order: preservation method, container

type, mushroom style, weight, grade,

container solution, and label type.

Based on an analysis of the comments

received, we have not included whole

mushroom size as a physical

characteristic for purposes of model

matching. The Department has received

conflicting information on this issue.

For example, Agro Dutch claims that

mini mushrooms (‘‘minis’’) are a

premium product and because of sales

marketing and cost reasons, this product

characteristic must be taken into

account. Ponds, on the other hand,

states that minis are a substandard

product that brings in lower prices than

normal size whole mushrooms. The

petitioners claim that mushroom size is

not a relevant product characteristic for

marketing or cost purposes.

Accordingly, there is an insufficient

basis on the record to find that an

additional characteristic is needed at

this time.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

mushrooms from India to the United

States were made at less than fair value,

we compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to the

Normal Value (‘‘NV’’), as described in

the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated weighted-average EPs for

comparison to weighted-average NVs.
41792 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on CV, that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general and administrative

(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses and profit. For EP,

the LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from

exporter to importer. To determine

whether NV sales are at a different level

of trade than EP, we examined stages in

the marketing process and selling

functions along the chain of distribution

between the producer and the

unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

While neither Agro Dutch nor Ponds

claimed a LOT adjustment, we have,

nonetheless, undertaken an evaluation

to determine whether such an

adjustment was necessary. In so doing,

we examined both respondents’

distribution systems, including selling

functions, classes of customers, and

selling expenses. Ponds sold to only one

class of customer in each market. Ponds

reported that it does not incur any

selling expenses in the U.S. or third

country markets. With regard to Agro

Dutch, all sales in both markets are

made through one channel of

distribution. Accordingly, all

comparisons are at the same level of

trade for both respondents and an

adjustment pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.

Export Price

For Agro Dutch and Ponds, we used

EP methodology, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act, because the

subject merchandise was sold directly to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation and

CEP methodology was not otherwise

indicated.

Ponds

We based EP on the packed prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight, foreign inland insurance

and Indian export duty in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Agro Dutch

We based EP on the packed FOB or

C&F prices to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, brokerage and handling,

international freight, and Indian export

duties, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

After testing (1) home market and

third country market viability and (2)

whether third country sales were at

below-cost prices, we calculated NV as

noted in the ‘‘Price to Price

Comparisons’’ and ‘‘Price to CV

Comparisons’’ sections of this notice.

1. Home and Third Country Market

Viability

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is equal to or

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared the

respondents’ volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Because

both Agro Dutch’s and Pond’s aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was less than five

percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.

sales for the subject merchandise, we

determined that the home market was

not viable for either respondent.

However, we determined that the third

country markets of the Netherlands and

Denmark were viable for Agro Dutch

and Ponds, respectively, in accordance

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

Therefore, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(C), we have used third country

sales as a basis for NV.

In its Section A response, Agro Dutch

argued that the foreign like product sold

in Mexico is the most appropriate for

comparison to the subject merchandise

because it is more similar to the product

exported to the United States. However,

we selected the Netherlands because it

is Agro Dutch’s largest third country

market and we found identical matches

to Agro Dutch’s U.S. sales using the

model matching hierarchy discussed

above under ‘‘Product Comparisons.’’

We selected Denmark as the appropriate

third country market for Ponds because

it was the largest of Ponds’ third country

markets. See 19 CFR 351.404(e).

2. Cost of Production Analysis

As stated in the ‘‘Case History’’

section of the notice, based on a timely

allegation filed by the petitioners, the

Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether Agro Dutch’s and

Ponds’ third country sales were made at

prices less than the COP.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of the cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus an amount for third country SG&A,

interest expenses, and packing costs. We

used the information from Agro Dutch’s

and Ponds’ Section D supplemental

questionnaire responses to calculate

COP, with the following adjustments:

Agro Dutch. (1) We calculated COP

using the average direct materials

expense reported by Agro Dutch,

instead of Agro Dutch’s original direct

material costs, which were derived

using a net realizable value allocation.

(2) In order to put the general and

administrative (‘‘G&A’’) rate on the same

basis as the per-unit cost of

manufacturing, we excluded certain

expense items from the cost of goods

sold used by Agro Dutch as the

denominator in its calculation.

(3) We made the same revisions to the

denominator used in the financial

expense rate for the same purposes.

(4) Finally, we have not included the

startup period adjustment amounts

claimed by Agro Dutch in the COP

calculations. Agro Dutch calculated the

startup adjustments based on total

production costs. According to the

Statement of Administrative Action

(‘‘SAA’’), section B.5.d.3, page 167:

‘‘Commerce will replace unit

production costs incurred during the

startup period with unit production

costs incurred at the end of the startup

period.’’ Actual costs for the newly built

rooms at the end of the startup phase

were not used in Agro Dutch’s

calculation of the adjustments.

Although we have preliminarily denied

Agro Dutch’s startup adjustment on the

basis that it was miscalculated, we will

continue to analyze the company’s

claim that it meets the statutory

conditions for startup under section

773(f)(1)C) of the Act.

Ponds. (1) We used Ponds’ cost

worksheets based on actual yields in our

calculations instead of relying on Pond’s

per-unit costs derived from hypothetical

yields.

(2) We increased the cost of

manufacturing for certain minis to

include an amount for expenses

incurred on the reprocessing of minis.

(3) We also revised per-unit variable

overhead costs to exclude the Indian
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41793

export duty, which we have

recalculated as a movement expense.

B. Test of Third Country Sales Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COPs for Agro Dutch and Ponds,

adjusted where appropriate, to third

country sales prices of the foreign like

product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act. In determining

whether to disregard third country sales

made at prices less than the COP, we

examined whether (1) within an

extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the third country

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, rebates, discounts, and direct

and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POI were

at prices less than the COP, we

determined such sales to have been

made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within

an extended period of time, in

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

the Act. In such cases, because we

compared prices to weighted-average

COPs for the POI, we also determined

that such sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

the below-cost sales. Where all sales of

a specific product were at prices below

the COP, we disregarded all sales of that

product. For those U.S. sales of

mushrooms for which there were no

comparable (above-cost) third country

sales in the ordinary course of trade, we

compared EP to CV, in accordance with

section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

We found that, for certain mushroom

products sold by Agro Dutch, more than

20 percent of third country sales were

sold at below COP prices within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities. We therefore excluded these

sales and used the remaining above-cost

sales as the basis of determining NV, in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act. For Ponds, we found that all of the

third country sales were at prices less

than the COP. Thus, in the absence of

any above-cost third country sales, we

compared EP to CV in accordance with

section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of cost of materials, fabrication,

SG&A, interest, and U.S. packing costs.

We made the same adjustments to the

reported costs for the CV calculation as

we made for the COP calculation.

For Agro Dutch, all comparisons were

made on a price-to-price basis. Thus, it

was not necessary to calculate CV.

As stated above with regard to Ponds,

since there were no above-cost Danish

sales and, hence, no actual companyspecific profit data available for Ponds’s

sales of the foreign like product to

Denmark, we calculated profit in

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii)

of the Act and the Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d

Cong., 2d Sess. at 841. (1994) (‘‘SAA’’).

Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) states that profit

may be determined under any

reasonable method with the appropriate

‘‘profit cap.’’ The SAA, however,

provides that where, due to the absence

of data, the Department cannot

determine amounts for profit under

alternatives (i) or (ii) of section

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act or a ‘‘profit cap’’

under alternative (iii) of section

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department

may apply alternative (iii) on the basis

of the facts available. In this case, we are

unable to determine an amount for

profit under alternatives (i) or (ii), or a

‘‘profit cap’’ under alternative (iii)

because we do not have actual amounts

incurred by other companies on home

market sales of the same general

category of products (the so-called profit

cap). Therefore, as facts available under

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

Ponds’ profit we are using a rate

calculated from Ponds’ 1996 financial

statements for mushrooms. We believe

this data is a reasonable surrogate for

profit because it is based upon a period

in which there was no alleged dumping.

For SG&A, we have used Ponds’ actual

SG&A expense on sales to the third

country. This data reflects Ponds’ actual

experience in selling the foreign like

product.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated NV based on delivered

prices to unaffiliated customers. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

from the starting price for inland freight,

international freight, brokerage and

handling, and Indian customs duty. In

addition, we made adjustments under

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act,

where appropriate, for differences in

circumstances of sale for imputed credit

expenses. Finally, we deducted third

country packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We

deducted from CV the weighted-average

third country direct selling expenses

and added the weighted-average U.S.

product-specific direct selling expenses,

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

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

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank,

in accordance with section 773(A) of the

Act.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Agro Dutch Foods Limited .......... 2.75

Pond’s India, Ltd. ........................ 15.18

Alpine Biotech Ltd. ...................... 243.87

Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd. .......... 243.87

All Others .................................... 9.97

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports
41794 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than October

14, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later

than October 21, 1998. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Such summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

October 23, 1998, time and room to be

determined, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by no later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration .

[FR Doc. 98–20911 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–851]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From

the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Kate Johnson,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–4929,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR Part 351, 62 FR

27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain preserved mushrooms

(‘‘mushrooms’’) from the People’s

Republic of China are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from

Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s

Republic of China, (63 FR 5360,

February 2, 1998) (‘‘Notice of

Initiation’’)), the following events have

occurred:

During January and February 1998,

the Department requested information

from the U.S. Embassy in the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) to identify

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise.

On February 27, 1998, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.

Also, on February 27, 1998, the

Department issued an antidumping

questionnaire to the China Chamber of

Commerce for Import & Export of

Foodstuffs, Native Produce, and Animal

By-Products (the ‘‘Chamber’’) and the

Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic

Cooperation (‘‘MOFTEC’’) with

instructions to forward the

questionnaire to all producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise and that

these companies must respond by the

due dates. During February and March

1998, we sent courtesy copies of the

antidumping duty questionnaire to the

following companies identified as

possible exporters/producers of the

subject merchandise during the POI:

Shanghai Maling Canned Food

Fuzhou Cannery

Chin Huay Food Co. (HK) Ltd.

China Ningbo Canned Food

Zhang Zhou General Canned Food

Xia Men Cannery

Raoping Tinned Food Factory

Ruian Canned Factory

Yue Qin Canned Food Factory

Wenzhou Wanli Food Co. Ltd.

Glory Land Food Industrial Co.

Ning De Cannery

Shansha Cannery

Xin an Jiang Canned Food

Cangxi Cannery

Ba Zhong Cannery

Chongqing Cannery

Tung Chun Company

Nang Jin Cannery

Mei Wei Foods Industry Co. Ltd.

Dongguan Canning Factory

Cangban Canned Food Factory

Cofco (Longhai) Food Inc.

Longhai Senox Food Industry Ltd.

Pinghe Canned Factory

Fujian Tiand Food Drink Co.

Shanghai Foreign Trade Xian You

Fuan Canned Food Factory

Xibin Overseas Chinese Canned

Dongya Food Company

Fujian Zhaoan Canned Food

Zhanghou Xiancheng Canned

Zhang Huaqing Canned Food

Zishan Food Canning Plant

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Food Co.

Jiufa Edible Fungus Co. Ltd.

Xiamen Jiahua Export and Import Trading

Co. Ltd.

Xiamen Gulong Import Export Co., Ltd.

Bazhong Canned Food Factory

Beiliu Canned Food Factory

Dangdong Canned Food Import & Export Co.

Dayi Brewery

Dongqing Canned Food Processing Factory

Fu’an Kangcuo Cereals & Oils Management

Station

Fujian Changshan Huaqiao Canned Food

Processing Factory

Fujian Zhangzhou Canned Food Factory

Hebei Edible Fungus Research Institute

Hunan Changsha Canned Food Factory

Jiangsu Rugao Canned Food Factory

Chifeng Fuyuan Cereals & Oils Co.

Fuzhou Native Produce & Animal ByProducts Import and Export Co.

Guangdong Heshan Foodstuffs Import &

Export Corp.

Beijing Foreign Trade Food Corp.

China National Processed Food Import &

Export Corp.

Chengdu Native Produce Import & Export

Corp.

Shantou Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.

Shanghai Cereals & Oil Trade Co.

Guangdong Maoming Native Produce Import

& Export Corp.

Henan Native Produce Import and Export

Corp.