2734 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices

Adjustment of the Shelter Deduction

Section 13912 of the Mickey Leland

Childhood Hunger Relief Act, Chapter 3,

Title XIII, Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103–

66, enacted August 10, 1993, (the

Leland Act) amended section 5(e) of the

Food Stamp Act to change procedures

for adjusting the excess shelter

deduction cap. Prior to the Leland Act,

the excess shelter deduction cap was

adjusted annually based on changes in

the shelter, fuel and utilities

components of housing costs in the CPI–

U published by BLS. The Leland Act,

however, mandated increases in the

shelter cap effective July 1, 1994, and

October 1, 1995, and an elimination of

the cap effective January 1, 1997. The

shelter cap amounts effective for Fiscal

Year 1995 were announced in a General

Notice published in the Federal

Register on March 14, 1994 at 59 FR

11761, and in a proposed rule on Excess

Shelter Expense Limit and Standard

Utility Allowances published in the

Federal Register on November 22, 1994.

For the convenience of the reader,

however, we are restating those amounts

below.

MAXIMUM SHELTER DEDUCTIONS FOR

HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT ELDERLY OR

DISABLED MEMBER

[Effective 07–01–94 through 09–30–95]

48 States and DC ........................... $231

Alaska ............................................. 402

Hawaii ............................................. 330

Guam .............................................. 280

Virgin Islands .................................. 171

(7 U.S.C. 2011–2032)

Adjustment of the Homeless Household

Shelter Expense

Section 11(e)(3)(E) of the Food Stamp

Act requires the Secretary to prescribe

rules requiring state agencies to develop

standard estimates of the shelter

expenses that may reasonably be

expected to be incurred by households

in which all members are homeless but

which are not receiving free shelter

throughout the month. 7 U.S.C. Sec.

2020(e)(3)(E). In recognition of the

difficulty State agencies may face in

gathering the necessary information to

compute standard shelter estimates for

their States, the Secretary offered a

standard estimate which may be used by

all State agencies in lieu of their own

estimates.

In the Deduction and Disaster

Provisions from the Mickey Leland

Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act

final rule, published at 56 FR 63613

(December 4, 1991), the Department

stated that it would annually adjust the

homeless household shelter expense

each October 1 using the same changes

in the shelter, fuel and utilities

component of the CPI used in indexing

the shelter cap. This year’s homeless

household shelter expense is $139.

Dated: January 4, 1995.

Ellen Haas,

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 95–636 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–813]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Frederick or John Brinkmann,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0186 or

482–5288, respectively.

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: We

preliminarily determine that canned

pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand is

being, or is likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value, as

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’)(1994).

The estimated margins of sales at less

than fair value are shown in the

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation on June 28, 1994 (59 FR

34408), the following events have

occurred.

On July 25, 1994, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

issued an affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case (see ITC

Investigation No. 731–TA–706).

On August 3, 1994, we named the

following four companies as the

respondents in this investigation: Dole

Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged

Foods Company, and Dole Thailand,

Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Dole’’); The Thai

Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (‘‘TIPCO’’);

Siam Agro Industry Pineapple and

Others Co., Ltd. (‘‘SAICO’’); and Malee

Sampran Factory Public Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Malee’’). These four companies

accounted for at least 60 percent of the

exports of CPF to the United States

during the period of investigation (POI)

(January through June 1994) (see

Memorandum from Team to Richard W.

Moreland, dated August 3, 1994).

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.42(b)(1994), we issued antidumping

duty questionnaires to the four

companies on August 5, 1994.

Section A of the Department’s

questionnaire requesting general

information concerning the company’s

corporate structure and business

practices, the merchandise under

investigation that it sells, and the sales

of the merchandise in all markets was

received from the four respondents on

September 2, 1994. We analyzed each

respondent’s home market and third

country sales of the subject merchandise

in accordance with 19 CFR

353.48(a)(1994), and determined that

the home market was not viable for any

of the respondents. Germany was

selected as the appropriate third country

market for all respondents in

accordance with 19 CFR

353.49(b)(1994).

On August 10, 1994, Dole requested

that the POI be modified to coincide

with its fiscal half-year accounting

period. We accepted Dole’s proposal on

August 18, 1994, and modified the POI

for Dole to cover that period from

January 2, 1994, through June 18, 1994

(see Memorandum from Gary Taverman

to Barbara R. Stafford, dated August 18,

1994). The POI was not modified for the

other three respondents.

On August 10 and 24, 1994, Dole

claimed that for purposes of reporting

U.S. sales, it was impossible for the

company to distinguish between its

pineapple grown and canned in

Thailand and its pineapple grown and

canned in the Philippines. Therefore,

Dole requested that it be allowed to

report all of its U.S. sales of CPF,

including those of Philippine origin, for

each product category. Dole then

proposed that an allocation ratio based

on 1993 shipments to the United States

be applied to determine the share of

Thai-origin CPF sold during the POI. By

doing so, Dole stated the Department

could calculate a less than fair value

margin for Dole’s U.S. sales of Thaiorigin merchandise during the POI

based on a ratio of Thai origin to Thai

and Philippine origin merchandise.

In addition, Dole requested that it be

allowed to exclude all sales of 5.5 ounce

cans of crushed pineapple which

accounted for an insignificant volume of

its U.S. sales. Dole claimed that this
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices 2735

product is a unique product which is

not produced by any other canned

pineapple producer in the world nor

sold by Dole in any other markets. On

September 6, 1994, we granted Dole’s

requests concerning the reporting of its

U.S. sales, but reserved our decision on

the appropriate methodology for

calculating a less than fair value margin

for Dole’s Thai-origin merchandise until

we had an opportunity to review further

its submissions (see Memorandum from

Gary Taverman to Richard W. Moreland,

dated September 6, 1994).

Sections B and C of the Department’s

questionnaire which request homemarket sales listings and U.S. sales

listings, respectively, were received

from Dole, TIPCO, and SAICO on

September 20, 1994. Malee’s Section B

and C responses were received on

September 22, 1994.

Supplemental questionnaires

regarding Sections A, B and C of the

Department’s questionnaire were issued

to Dole on October 14, 1994, and to

TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee on October

18, 1994.

On October 21, 1994, we received a

timely request from Maui Pineapple

Company, Ltd. and the International

Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s

Union (the petitioners) to postpone the

preliminary determination until no later

than 210 days after the date of the filing

of the petition in this investigation,

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.15(c)(1994). On

October 26, 1994, finding no compelling

reason to deny the request, we granted

this request and postponed this final

determination until January 4, 1995 (59

FR 54546, November 1, 1994).

Dole submitted supplemental

responses to Sections A, B and C of the

questionnaire on November 4, and

December 21, 1994. Supplemental

responses from TIPCO, SAICO, and

Malee were submitted on November 8,

1994.

On November 21 and 23, 1994,

respondents TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee

requested that the Department confirm

their selection of invoice date as the

proper date of sale for all reported sales.

We issued a decision on this issue on

November 29, 1994 (see Memorandum

from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R.

Stafford, dated November 29, 1994).

Subsequently, on December 8, 1994, the

Department modified this decision (see

memoranda to file dated December 5,

December 7, and December 8, 1994),

and granted respondents’ request to use

invoice date as the date of sale for all

reported sales. This issue is discussed

further in the ‘‘Date of Sale’’ section

below.

Cost of Production Allegation

On September 29, 1994, the

petitioners alleged that TIPCO, SAICO,

and Malee sold the subject merchandise

in Germany during the POI at prices

below the cost of production (COP). The

petitioners filed a similar allegation

against Dole on September 30, 1994.

Based upon our analysis of these

allegations, we found that there are

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that TIPCO, SAICO, Malee, and Dole

sold CPF in Germany at prices which

were below the COP. Accordingly, on

October 21, 1994, we initiated COP

investigations against these four

respondents pursuant to section 773(b)

of the Act (1994) (see Memorandum

from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R.

Stafford, dated October 21, 1994).

Section D of the Department’s

questionnaire requesting cost of

production and constructed value data

was issued to the four respondents on

November 7, 1994. Dole’s Section D

response was received on December 19,

1994. Section D responses from TIPCO,

SAICO, and Malee were received on

December 27, 1994. Because this

information was received too late to be

considered for purposes of the

preliminary determination, we will

analyze this data and use it in the final

determination to determine whether any

of the respondents made third country

sales at prices below the COP.

Postponement of Final Determination

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

Act (1994), Dole requested on January 4,

1995, that in the event of an affirmative

preliminary determination in this

investigation, the Department postpone

the final determination until no later

than 135 days after the date of

publication of an affirmative

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. Pursuant to 19 CFR

353.20(b) (1994), because our

preliminary determination is affirmative

and Dole is a significant producer of

CPF, and no compelling reasons for

denial exist, we are postponing the date

of the final determination until the

135th day after the date of publication

of this notice in the Federal Register.

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is canned pineapple fruit

(CPF). For the purposes of this

investigation, CPF is defined as

pineapple processed and/or prepared

into various product forms, including

rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and

crushed pineapple, that is packed and

cooked in metal cans with either

pineapple juice or sugar syrup added.

CPF is currently classifiable under

subheadings 2008.20.0010 and

2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF

packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS

2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed

without added sugar (i.e., juice-packed).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

As stated above, the POI is January 1,

through June 30, 1994, for TIPCO,

SAICO, and Malee; and January 2,

through June 18, 1994, for Dole (see

‘‘Case History’’ section above).

Such or Similar Comparisons

We determined that all products

covered by this investigation constitute

a single category of such or similar

merchandise. Where there were no sales

of identical merchandise in the third

country market to compare to U.S. sales,

we made similar merchandise

comparisons on the basis of the criteria

defined in Appendix V to the

antidumping questionnaire, on file in

Room B–099 of the main building of the

Department of Commerce.

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.58(1994), we made comparisons at

the same level of trade, where possible.

Where we were not able to match sales

at the same level of trade, we made

comparisons without regard to the level

of trade.

Dole stated that its various customers

categories (i.e., retail, foodservice and

industrial) constituted three separate

levels of trade. However, based on

information contained in its response,

we preliminarily determine that Dole

sold CPF to two distinct levels of trade

in both the U.S. and German markets.

The first level is comprised of sales to

customers in the retail and foodservice

sectors (Level I); the second is

comprised of sales to customers in the

industrial sector (Level II).

We have reached this conclusion

based on the reported functional

differences of Dole’s customers. See

Import Administration Policy Bulletin

92/1 dated July 29, 1992. Level I

customers can be characterized as large

national and regional chains which

resell CPF to local or independent retail

stores or food service outlets. Level II

customers can be characterized as

companies that use CPF as an ingredient

in the production of other food

products.
2736 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices

Date of Sale

TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee requested

that the Department determine whether

their proposed date of sale methodology

(i.e., invoice date) was appropriate

based on information contained in their

respective questionnaire responses.

After an analysis of this information,

additional data presented by the

respondents concerning this issue, as

well as the arguments raised by the

petitioners, we instructed TIPCO,

SAICO, and Malee to report the original

order date as the date of sale unless

there was a change to the essential terms

of sale (i.e., price and/or quantity) prior

to the date of invoicing. For those sales

where there was a modification to the

price and/or quantity, we asked these

respondents to report the invoice date as

the date of sale. The invoice date was

selected, rather than the actual date of

the modification, in order to reduce the

administrative burden claimed by

respondents in obtaining the actual

order modification date.

In response to the Department’s

instructions, respondents have argued

that both the buyer and seller do not

consider the terms to be fixed until the

date of shipment and that the

Department should accept the date of

invoice as the date of sale for all sales.

The questionnaire responses, which

indicate that the contracts or initial

agreements do not establish that the

terms are binding and that either party

can change the order at any time up to

the invoice date, support this assertion.

The Department considers the date of

sale to be the date upon which all

material terms of the contract for sale

are set, especially price and quantity

(see General Electric Co. versus United

States, Slip Op. 93–55 at 4 (CIT, April

21, 1993); Toho Titanium Co. versus

United States, 743 F. Supp. 888, 890

(CIT 1990)). Our review of the record in

light of the arguments subsequently

presented by the respondents indicates

that the material terms of any order can

be changed prior to the invoice date.

Further, we note that, for a significant

number of sales during the POI, price or

quantity did change prior to the invoice

date. Therefore, upon further

examination of the facts of this issue,

the Department has determined that the

invoice date is the appropriate date of

sale for all TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee

sales.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of CPF

from Thailand to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the United States price

(‘‘USP’’) to the foreign market value

(‘‘FMV’’), as specified in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Foreign Market

Value’’ sections of this notice.

As noted in the ‘‘Case History’’

section above, Dole has reported all of

its U.S. sales of subject merchandise,

including those of Philippine origin, for

each product category where Dole had

shipments from both Thailand and the

Philippines to the United States during

1993. In order to calculate a less than

fair value margin based on an estimated

quantity of Dole’s U.S. sales of Thaiorigin merchandise during the POI, we

have weighted the dumping margin for

each product category by the ratio of the

shipments of subject merchandise from

Thailand to the total volume shipped

from both Thailand and the Philippines

during the last seven accounting periods

of 1993 (i.e., July 19 through December

31, 1993). We used the July-December

accounting periods as the basis for

establishing the ratio rather than the

entire 1993 period because Dole’s

average inventory turnover rate is

reported to be six to seven months.

For certain U.S. and German market

sales, Dole reported its re-sale of subject

merchandise purchased from unrelated

producers in Thailand. Section 773(a)(1)

of the Act (1994) specifies that FMV be

calculated based on sales of ‘‘such or

similar merchandise’’. The term ‘‘such

or similar merchandise’’ is defined by

section 771(16) of the Act (1994) as

merchandise which is produced in the

same country and by the same person as

the merchandise which is the subject of

the investigation. Therefore, we cannot

use sales of CPF produced by persons

other than Dole when calculating FMV.

Accordingly, we have excluded all of

Dole’s German sales of subject

merchandise it did not produce from

our calculation of FMV.

Similarly, in calculating USP, we also

determined that it is appropriate to

exclude all of Dole’s U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise it did not produce.

However, because we were unable to

determine which particular U.S. sales

were of merchandise produced by firms

other than Dole, we have weighted the

dumping margin for each product

category identified by Dole. We

weighted the dumping margin by

applying a ratio of the volume of Doleproduced product to the combined total

volumes of Dole-produced and

purchased product shipped to the

United States during 1993, allowing us

to calculate a margin based on an

estimated quantity of Dole-produced

product. We note that this weighing

period is different than that used to

weigh Thai- and non-Thai produced

merchandise. However, the only

information available for purposes of

weighing these sales was for the whole

calendar year 1993.

In addition, we preliminarily

determined that Dole should have

reported as U.S. sales certain shipments

made during the POI which Dole

claimed were pursuant to a long-term

agreement negotiated prior to the POI

(see Toho Titanium Co. versus United

States, 743 F. Supp. 888, 891 (CIT

1990); General Electric Co. v. United

States, Slip. Op. 93–55 at 4 (CIT, April

21, 1993). Based upon our analysis of

the agreement, it appears that the price

terms are indefinite and subject to

Dole’s control. Because these shipments

were not reported, we are applying the

average of all positive margins to onehalf of the maximum quantity specified

in the agreement to be purchased during

1994 (i.e., we have divided the yearly

maximum quantity in half to correspond

to our six-month POI). Dole will be

required to report these shipments for

the final determination.

United States Price

For TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee, we

based USP on purchase price (PP), in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act (1994), because all of each

company’s U.S. sales to the first

unrelated purchaser took place prior to

importation into the United States and

exporter’s sales price (ESP)

methodology, in those instances, was

not otherwise indicated.

SAICO failed to report certain U.S.

sales in its revised Section C response

which we determined to be sales made

during the POI. We included these sales,

as they were included in SAICO’s initial

submission of Section C response, and

made appropriate adjustments for

charges based on the information

available (see Concurrence

Memorandum, dated January 4, 1995).

For Dole, where sales to the first

unrelated purchaser took place after

importation into the United States, we

based USP on ESP, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act (1994). For a

small number of Dole’s U.S. sales which

took place prior to importation into the

United States, we preliminarily

determine USP to be based on ESP

because: (1) The merchandise was

introduced into the physical inventory

of Dole’s U.S. warehouses after

importation and, thus, was not shipped

directly from the cannery in Thailand to

the unrelated U.S. customer; (2) all the

selling activities associated with Dole’s

U.S. sales, including these sales, are

handled in the United States through

Dole’s U.S. sales office by unrelated

brokers located in the United States; and

(3) it appears that Dole’s canneries in

Thailand have no control over the prices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices 2737

charged to the U.S. customers.

Therefore, because Dole’s U.S. sales

office acts as more than a processor of

sales-related documentation, we

consider these U.S. sales to be ESP

transactions. (See Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New

Minivans From Japan, 57 FR 21937,

21945 (May 26, 1992).

Malee

For Malee, we calculated PP based on

FOB and C&F prices charged to

unrelated customers in the United

States. We made deductions in

accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of

the Act (1994), where appropriate, for

foreign brokerage and handling, foreign

inland freight, and ocean freight. We

also made deductions in accordance

with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act

(1994), where appropriate, for bank

charges.

SAICO

For SAICO, we calculated PP based

on FOB prices charged to unrelated

customers in the United States. We

made deductions in accordance with

section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act (1994),

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, foreign inland insurance, and

foreign brokerage and handling. We also

made deductions in accordance with

section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994),

where appropriate, for bank charges.

TIPCO

For TIPCO, we calculated PP based on

FOB and C&F prices charged to

unrelated customers in the United

States. We made deductions in

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

the Act (1994), where appropriate, for

rebates. In addition, we made

deductions for the following movement

expenses in accordance with section

772(d)(2)(A) of the Act (1994): foreign

brokerage and handling, port charges,

foreign inland freight, and ocean freight.

We also made deductions in accordance

with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act

(1994), where appropriate, for bank

charges and warranty expenses.

Dole

We calculated Dole’s ESP sales based

on packed, FOB Dole’s warehouse and

delivered prices to unrelated customers

in the United States. We made

deductions in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2)(1994), where appropriate,

for discounts, rebates, and direct selling

expenses including unrelated

commissions, credit and warranty

expenses. We also made deductions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.41(d)(2)(i)

(1994), where appropriate, for foreign

brokerage and handling, freight

expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling,

U.S. duty and harbor fees. For purposes

of this preliminary determination, we

considered certain advertising expenses

to be direct selling expenses and have

deducted them in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(a)(2)(1994). In addition, we

deducted indirect selling expenses,

including inventory carrying expenses,

market development and warehousing

expenses in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2)(1994). The ‘‘in and out’’

warehousing expense claimed by Dole

as a direct selling expense was

reclassified as an indirect selling

expense because, based on information

on the record, it was not possible to

determine that this expense directly

applies to the sales under investigation.

An amount for revenue Dole earned on

certain sales where it charged its

customers for special delivery terms was

added to USP in order to offset the

additional expenses incurred by Dole on

the delivery of these sales.

We recalculated Dole’s reported credit

expenses in instances where Dole had

not reported a shipment and/or payment

date because the merchandise had not

yet been shipped and/or paid for at the

time of the filing of this response. For

those sales missing both a shipment and

payment date, we used the average

credit days of all transactions with a

reported shipment and payment date.

For those sales with a missing payment

date only, we inserted the date of the

preliminary determination.

We excluded from our analysis Dole’s

U.S. sales of distressed merchandise

because the quantity involved was

insignificant and Dole made no

comparable third country sales of

distressed merchandise during the POI

(see Concurrence Memorandum, dated

January 4, 1995).

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether there

were sufficient sales of CPF in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating FMV, we compared each

respondents’ volume of home market

sales of subject merchandise to the

volume of third country sales in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of

the Act (1994). As noted in the ‘‘Case

History’’ section above, we found that

the home market was not viable for any

of the respondents. We selected

Germany as the appropriate third

country market for all four respondents

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b)

(1994).

For each of the respondents, we made

adjustments, where appropriate, for

physical differences in the merchandise,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57

(1994). In addition, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act (1994), we

deducted third country packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs for all

respondents.

For TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee, we

adjusted for differences in commissions

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2)

(1994) as follows: Where commissions

were paid on some third country sales

used to calculate FMV, we deducted

from FMV both (1) indirect selling

expenses attributable to those sales on

which commissions were not paid; and

(2) commissions. The total deduction

was capped by the amount of the

commission paid on the U.S. sales in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1)

(1994). Where no commissions were

paid on third country sales used to

calculate FMV, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(b)(1) (1994), we deducted

the lesser of either 1) the amount of the

commission paid on the U.S. sale; or 2)

the sum of the weighted average indirect

selling expenses paid on the third

country sales. Finally, the amount of the

commission paid on the U.S. sale was

added to FMV in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994).

Malee

For Malee, we calculated FMV based

on FOB and C&F prices charged to

unrelated customers in Germany. In

light of the decision of the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

in Ad Hoc Committee of AS-NM-TX-FL

Producers of Gray Portland Cement v.

United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir.

1994), the Department no longer

deducts third country movement

charges from FMV pursuant to its

inherent power to fill in ‘‘gaps’’ in the

antidumping statute. Instead, we adjust

for those expenses under the

circumstance-of-sale provision of 19

CFR 353.56(a) (1994). Accordingly, in

the present case, we deducted post-sale

third country market movement charges

from FMV under the circumstance-ofsale provision. This adjustment

included foreign brokerage and

handling, foreign inland freight, and

ocean freight. We also made deductions

in accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B)

of the Act (1994), where appropriate, for

bank charges.

We made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to section

773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994) and 19

CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994).

SAICO

We based FMV on FOB prices charged

to unrelated customers in Germany. We

deducted post-sale movement charges

from FMV under the circumstance-ofsale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a)
2738 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices

(1994). The charges included foreign

inland freight, foreign inland insurance,

and foreign brokerage and handling. We

also made deductions in accordance

with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act

(1994), where appropriate, for bank

charges.

We made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2) (1994). For third-country

sales with missing payment dates, we

used the date of the preliminary

determination of this investigation in

order to calculate imputed credit.

TIPCO

We based FMV on FOB prices charged

to unrelated customers in Germany. We

deducted post-sale movement charges

from FMV under the circumstance-ofsale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a)

(1994). The charges included foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, port charges, and liner fees.

We also made deductions in accordance

with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act

(1994), where appropriate, for bank

charges.

We made a circumstance-of-sale

adjustment for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2) (1994).

Dole

We calculated FMV based on packed,

ex-warehouse, C&F port of import, exquay and delivered prices to unrelated

customers.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the

Act (1994) and 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2)(1994), we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

unrelated commissions as well as credit,

bank, and merchandising expenses. We

deducted post-sale movement charges

from FMV under the circumstance-ofsale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a)

(1994). The charges included freight

expenses, foreign brokerage and

handling, European Community (EC)

duty and EC brokerage and handling.

For movement expenses where it was

not possible to determine from

information on the record how the

expense directly applies to the sales

under investigation (i.e., movement

expenses associated with sales made on

an ex-warehouse or delivered basis), we

assumed all expenses to be indirect

selling expenses for purposes of the

preliminary determination. We

deducted from FMV the weightedaverage third country indirect selling

expenses including, where appropriate,

pre-sale movement expenses,

warehousing and inventory carrying

costs in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2)(1994). In accordance with

19 CFR 353.56(b) (1) and (2) (1994),

because commissions were paid in both

the United States and third country

markets, the deduction for third country

indirect selling expenses was capped by

the sum of U.S. indirect selling

expenses. We recalculated Dole’s

reported credit expense in instances

where Dole had not reported a shipment

and/or payment date because the

merchandise had not yet been shipped

and/or paid for at the time of the filing

of this response. For those sales missing

both a shipment and payment date, we

used the average credit days of all

transactions with a reported shipment

and payment date. For those sales

missing a payment date only, we

inserted the date of the preliminary

determination.

As noted above, in accordance with

sections 773(a)(1) and 771(16) of the Act

(1994), we excluded from our analysis

certain reported sales of subject

merchandise which was not produced

by Dole.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based

on the official exchange rates in effect

on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified

by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act (1994), we will verify information

used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(1)

of the Act (1994), we are directing the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all entries of CPF from Thailand, as

defined in the ‘‘Scope of the

Investigation’’ section of this notice, that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register (except those that

represent sales by Dole). The Customs

Service shall require a cash deposit or

posting of a bond equal to the estimated

preliminary dumping margins, as shown

below. This suspension of liquidation

will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturers/producers/exporters Margin percent

Dole ........................... 0.30 (De minimus)

TIPCO ....................... 7.81

SAICO ....................... 9.55

Malee ........................ 1.12

All Others .................. 6.73

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act (1994), we have notified the ITC

of our determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether imports of the

subject merchandise are materially

injuring, or threaten material injury to,

the U.S. industry before the later of 120

days after the date of the preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination.

Public Comment

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing must submit a written request

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room B–099, within ten

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.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38

(1994), case briefs or other written

comments in at least ten copies must be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary no

later than May 1, 1995, and rebuttal

briefs no later than May 3, 1995. A

hearing, if requested, will be held on

May 8, 1995, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce in Room 4830. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours prior to

the scheduled time. In accordance with

19 CFR 353.38(b) (1994), oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act

(1994) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4) (1994).

Date: January 4, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–687 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–201–003]

Ceramic Tile From Mexico; Amended

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended Final Result of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On August 8, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) submitted to the Court of

International Trade (CIT) the final

results of redetermination pursuant to a

remand in Ceramica Regiomontana,