13958 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

limited to this preliminary

determination on critical circumstances

if they are submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no

later than March 6, 1995

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6402 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–301–801 and A–331–801]

Amended Final Determinations of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh

Cut Roses From Colombia and

Ecuador

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Maeder or James Terpstra, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3330 or (202) 482–

3965, respectively.

Amendments to the Final

Determinations

We are amending the final

determinations of sales at less than fair

value of fresh cut roses from Colombia

and Ecuador to reflect the correction of

ministerial errors made in the margin

calculations in these determinations.

Because corrections of ministerial errors

for one company in the Colombian

investigation results in its exclusion

from any potential antidumping order,

we are issuing this notice prior to the

final determination of the U.S.

International Trade Commission. These

amendments to the final determinations

are being published in accordance with

19 CFR 353.28(c).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions in effect on

December 31, 1994.

Case History and Amendments of the

Final Determinations

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act), on February 6, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published its final

determinations that fresh cut roses from

Colombia and Ecuador were being sold

at less than fair value (60 FR 6980,

7019). Subsequent to the final

determinations, we received timely

ministerial error allegations from certain

respondents in the Colombian and

Ecuadorian investigations pursuant to

19 CFR 353.28. Section 751(f) of the Act

defines a ‘‘ministerial error’’ to be an

error ‘‘in addition, subtraction or other

arithmetic function, clerical error

resulting from inaccurate copying,

duplication, or the like, and any other

type of unintentional error which the

Secretary considers ministerial.’’ Below

is a discussion of the alleged errors that

we determined to be ministerial errors

as defined by section 751(f) of the Act.

These, and the alleged errors that the

Department determined not to be

ministerial in nature, are detailed

further in the Decision Memoranda from

Gary Taverman to Barbara R. Stafford,

dated March 3, 1995, which is on file in

the Import Administration Central

Records Unit, Room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building.

Colombia

On February 7 and 8, respondents

Rosex Group, Prisma Group, Agricola

Bojaca, Grupo Sabana, Flores Mocari,

Caicedo Group, Grupo Intercontinental,

and Grupo Papagayo, alleged that the

Department made ministerial errors in

its final determination and requested

that the Department correct these errors.

Petitioner provided comments on these

allegations on February 14, 1995.

Rosex Group

Issue 1: Rosex Group states that the

Department made a ministerial error in

the calculation of its per unit credit

expense. Rosex Group stated that it

changed its reported interest rate in its

December 5, 1994, sales listing from a

dollar-denominated rate to a pesodenominated interest rate. Because

Rosex Group calculated its U.S. imputed

credit using a peso-denominated rate, it

contends that the Department should

have adjusted this rate instead of a

dollar-denominated rate. Petitioner

maintains that the Department’s

computer instructions to change the

peso-based interest rate to a dollar-based

rate appear to be correct.

We agree with respondent that this

error constitutes a ministerial error as

defined by section 751(f) of the Act. It

was the Department’s intention to use a

U.S. interest rate of 7.575 percent in

Rosex Group’s imputed credit

calculation. Therefore, we have

corrected this ministerial error.

Prisma

Issue 1: Prisma argues that the

computer program used to calculate its

margin contained an error which

incorrectly computed the per-unit

commission for all U.S. sales

observations. Stating that the

Department intended to calculate a U.S.

commission for ten specific U.S. sales

observations, Prisma asserts that the

program mistakenly caused every U.S.

sales commission to be recalculated. In

addition, Prisma claims that there is

also a typographical error in the

calculation of commissions for one sales

observation.

We agree with Prisma that these are

ministerial errors, and have revised the

computer program accordingly.

Issue 2: With respect to inventory

carrying costs, Prisma notes that it

included the period normally covered

by inventory carrying cost in its

imputed credit calculation. As such,

Prisma argues that the Department

double-counted this expense by

calculating a separate inventory carrying

cost. Petitioner maintains that the

Department imputed inventory carrying

cost for seven days as best information

available (BIA) for those respondents

that failed to provide the data, and

argues that because Prisma did not

submit the data in the requested form,

it cannot now argue double-counting to

circumvent the application of BIA.

We agree with Prisma. We used BIA

for inventory carrying cost for those

respondents who had related parties in

the United States and did not report

inventory carrying costs on their

exporter’s sales price (ESP) sales.

However, because Prisma does not have

a related party in the United States, we

incorrectly calculated inventory

carrying costs. Therefore, we have

adjusted for this ministerial error.

Issue 3: Prisma contends that the

Department’s inflation adjustment

computation incorrectly assumed that

all companies within the Prisma Group

did not include the 1992 inflation

adjustment in their submitted

amortization expense. However,

respondent notes that the cost

verification report demonstrates that

Prisma did include the 1992 inflation

adjustment for farm Del Campo in its

submitted amortization expenses.

We agree. The cost verification report

at page 9 indicates that one of the seven

Prisma Group farms (Del Campo) did

include in its submitted cost

information its inflation adjusted preproduction material amortization costs

for years prior to the period of

investigation (POI). The other six farms

that make up the Prisma Group did not
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13959

make adjustments for inflation. Because

we did not intend to make an

adjustment for Del Campo that had

already been made, we have

recalculated the inflation adjustment.

Bojaca

Issue 1: Bojaca contends that it was

incorrect for the Department to use BIA

to impute amounts for brokerage and

duties whenever the values for those

expenses were reported as zero for U.S.

ESP customers. Bojaca asserts that it

was only for customer 4 that there were

zero values for brokerage or duties, and

maintains that because it could not

segregate these amounts, it reported the

combined amounts under air freight.

Petitioner argues that Bojaca failed to

cite to any questionnaire response or

verification exhibit which informed the

Department that brokerage and duty

expenses were consolidated with air

freight. Petitioner asserts that Bojaca did

not explain why a reasonable allocation

methodology could not segregate these

amounts, and adds that it is not clear

that brokerage and duty expenses were

always included in air freight.

Therefore, petitioner asserts that the

Department’s choice of BIA to fill

Bojaca’s reported zero values does not

constitute a ministerial error.

We agree with respondent in part. We

verified that Bojaca had included its

duty and brokerage expenses in its air

freight expenses for customer 4.

Therefore, we incorrectly applied BIA to

customer 4. However, we found that

there are zero values for other ESP

customers. Therefore, we have

continued to use BIA for the other ESP

customers that have a zero value

reported in these fields.

Issue 2: Bojaca argues that the

Department incorrectly calculated

constructed value (CV) packing expense

by using total packing expenses for

roses, irrespective of destination, rather

than total U.S. packing expense.

We agree. We intended to use total

U.S. packing expenses rather than total

packing expenses in our CV calculation.

We have recalculated CV packing

expense to correct this error.

Issue 3: Bojaca argues that the

Department erroneously allocated the

entire group-wide interest expense to

roses, when it should have allocated

only the proportion of the group-wide

interest expense associated with rose

activities. Bojaca argues that the interest

expense associated with the dairy farm

and mini-roses should not have been

included in the calculation.

We agree. We intended to exclude

from our cost calculations the portion of

interest expense related to the dairy

farm. We purposely did not allocate any

interest expense to the mini-roses

because: (1) Respondent indicated that

an insignificant portion (less than one

percent) of the total cultivated area of

one of the three farms within the Bojaca

Group produced mini-roses; and, (2)

because the cost of production for miniroses, the basis used to allocate interest

expense to Bojaca’s different products,

was not provided by the company. We

intended to compute interest expense by

excluding only the portion of interest

expense that relates to the dairy farm.

We have made this adjustment, but only

as it related to the dairy farm.

Mocari

Issue 1: Mocari argues that the

Department mistakenly deducted air

freight expenses which it did not incur

on its purchase price (PP) sales

transactions. Mocari points out that

these sales were made on an FOB

Bogota basis, and requests that the

Department deduct the air freight

expenses from only the ESP sales

transactions. The petitioner argues that

Mocari had ample opportunity

throughout the investigation to correct

any error in reporting air freight. In

addition, the petitioner maintains that

Mocari has not provided a basis which

demonstrates that its proposed

correction would be limited only to

removing erroneous expenses.

We agree with respondent. We

verified that Mocari did not pay air

freight for PP sales. Therefore, we have

corrected the error by deducting

amounts for air freight from ESP sales

only.

Issue 2: Mocari claims that the

Department mistakenly included it in

the list of companies that had no U.S.

borrowings during the POI and should

not have used BIA to calculate imputed

credit expenses and inventory carrying

cost. Mocari maintains that the

Department should have used its actual

borrowing rate instead of the publicly

ranged interest rate to calculate imputed

credit expenses and inventory carrying

costs.

We agree with respondent. We

intended to use Mocari’s actual interest

rate in our imputed credit expenses and

inventory carrying costs calculations.

Mocari’s financial statements show that

it paid interest on short-term borrowings

during the POI. Accordingly, we have

revised Mocari’s imputed credit

calculation and inventory carrying cost

to use its short-term dollar-denominated

interest rate.

Issue 3: Mocari claims that the

Department should not have subtracted

the total number of stems returned from

the sales quantity indicated on the CV

tables because the amount reported was

already net of returns. Therefore, Mocari

requests that the Department recalculate

its cost of manufacture (COM) using the

sales quantity indicated on line 8 of the

CV tables. In addition, Mocari requests

that the Department not subtract

additional stems from the amount

reported on line 8 of the CV tables

because such action represents an

improper double-counting of returns.

The petitioner states that Mocari

should have reported an amount which

was inclusive of returns in line 8 of the

CV tables instead of an amount which

was net of returns. The petitioner argues

that Mocari should have notified the

Department earlier that the amount

reported on line 8 of the CV table was

net of returns. Therefore, petitioner

maintains that clerical error comments

are not the forum in which to determine

new factual claims.

We agree with respondent. Sales

verification exhibit 19 shows that the

amount Mocari reported on line 8 of the

CV tables is net of returns. Accordingly,

we have recalculated the COM, interest,

and general and administrative

expenses for Mocari using the quantity

amount on line 8 of the CV tables.

Further, because this figure is net of

returns, we did not deduct an additional

amount for returns from this figure; this

action would have represented doublecounting.

Grupo Intercontinental

Issue 1: Grupo Intercontinental

(Intercontinental) alleges that in its CV

calculation, the Department erred in its

calculation of a home market packing

cost as BIA. Intercontinental argues that

the Department should have used its

U.S. packing cost, as required by section

353.50(a)(3) of the Department’s

regulations. Intercontinental further

states that instead of using the verified

U.S. packing expense in its CV

calculation, the Department used a

home market BIA amount that should

have been applied only to home market

sales of export quality roses for which

no packing costs were reported.

Therefore, Intercontinental requests that

the Department apply the U.S. packing

expense in its CV calculation.

We agree that the Department erred in

using the BIA home market packing

expense for CV. While we properly

applied the per stem packing cost for

purposes of the cost test, we intended to

use the verified U.S. packing amount for

calculating CV. Therefore, we revised

our calculation to correct this clerical

error.

Issue 2: Intercontinental states that

the Department intended to correct

Colombian Flower Council (CFC) fees

for certain customers in certain months
13960 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

and that, in making the programming

changes necessary to accomplish this

task, the Department mistakenly

changed the CFC fees for all customers

in all months. We agree, and have

corrected this error.

Caicedo Group

Issue 1: Caicedo states that the

Department’s inflation adjustment was

intended to be a reasonable estimate of

the effects of inflation on depreciation

and amortization expenses denominated

in historical pesos. Caicedo argues,

however, that the Department erred in

applying its inflation adjustment to the

company’s total reported cost of

cultivation, including current

cultivation costs, and that this is the

equivalent of punitive ‘‘BIA.’’ Caicedo

further argues that its record provides

information regarding the company’s

1993 depreciation and amortization of

pre-production expenses.

We agree that the Department

mistakenly adjusted Caicedo’s current

cultivation costs for inflation.

Accordingly, we have recalculated the

inflation adjustment by applying the

determined inflation rate to non-current,

pre-production amortization and

depreciation costs only.

Issue 2: Caicedo argues that the

Department should adjust the cull

revenue to recognize the insurance

compensation proceeds the company

received for hailstorm damage. Caicedo

states that the insurance proceeds,

which were originally reported as an

offset to overhead, were subsequently

reclassified by Caicedo and included in

the balance for cull revenue. Caicedo

concludes that the Department made a

ministerial error by excluding the

reduction in rose production costs

resulting from the insurance proceeds.

We agree. We have reduced Caicedo’s

total costs by the insurance proceeds

received.

Issue 3: Caicedo contends that the

Department made two ministerial errors

in its allocation of interest expenses.

First, Caicedo argues that the

Department erred in allocating interest

expense over total export quality rose

stems sold during the POI. Because the

particular companies involved produce

and sell other types of flowers, Caicedo

maintains that the Department should

have allocated interest expense over

total flower stems. Second, Caicedo

claims that the Department failed to

allocate any of the combined interest

expense to Great American Bouquet

S.A. (GAB), a division of Inverfloral

LTDA (Inverfloral) that does not grow

flowers, but, rather, incorporates

numerous flower types, including roses,

into bouquets. Caicedo concludes that

the Department’s failure to allocate the

combined interest expenses to GAB was

inadvertent, and that the Department

intended to allocate the combined

interest expenses of the four grower/

exporters over their combined stems

sold for all flower types.

We agree. We intended to allocate the

combined interest expense of the four

grower/exporters to the rose operations

of those companies, including

Inverfloral’s GAB division. Therefore,

we recalculated Caicedo’s interest

expense by first allocating the total

combined interest expenses of the four

companies between Inverfloral/GAB

(non-grower) and the other three

companies (which all grow flowers)

based on the ratio of Inverfloral/GAB’s

productive and long-term assets to the

total productive and long-term assets of

all four companies. Because companies

generally borrow capital in order to

finance the purchase of such assets, we

consider this approach to be the most

reasonable indicator of the borrowing

needs of the rose production versus

bouquet assembly sides of Caicedo’s

operations. For each of the four grower/

exporters, we included in productive

assets the year-end 1993 financial

statement balances for inventory, crop

investments, crops in development, and

long-term assets, including fixed assets.

In order to allocate the remaining

interest expense between rose and other

flower growing operations at the three

production companies, we used the

ratio of rose cultivation area to total

cultivation area, for the three companies

that grow flowers. This methodology is

consistent with that used for several of

the other Colombian rose growing

companies.

Ecuador

On February 8, 1995, Arbusta-Agritab

(Arbusta) and Guanguilqui Agro

Industrial S.A. (Guaisa) made timely

allegations that the Department made

ministerial errors in its final

determination. On February 16, 1995,

petitioner provided its comments on the

alleged errors.

Arbusta

Issue 1: Arbusta states that the

Department incorrectly multiplied DHL

delivery charges by quantity before

subtracting this expense from U.S. price.

We agree. Because we did not intend

to multiply the per stem DHL expense

by quantity, we have corrected this

error.

Issue 2: Arbusta argues that the

Department incorrectly disallowed the

company’s capitalization of costs

incurred during the vegetative period.

We agree. Because we inadvertently

overlooked the inclusion of the

capitalization and amortization of prior

period vegetative period costs, we have

adjusted the CV to allow for the current

period capitalization of vegetative

period costs.

Issue 3: Arbusta alleges that the

Department mistakenly added actual

historical depreciation expenses to CV

instead of only the revaluation of those

expenses. Arbusta contends that this

addition double counts the amount of

historical depreciation.

We agree. We inadvertently added

historical depreciation to CV. Therefore,

because we unintentionally doublecounted this expense, we have corrected

the error.

Issue 4: Arbusta states that in its CV

calculation the Department used an

incorrect packing expense. Petitioner

also notes that the packing cost used in

the CV calculation for Arbusta conflicts

with the Department’s analysis

memorandum.

We agree with both petitioner and

respondent, and determine this to be a

ministerial error. Accordingly, we have

corrected the packing expenses used in

CV.

Guaisa

Guaisa contends that the Department

reallocated certain expenses to roses

based on an incorrect rose area

percentage for Guaisa farm.

We agree with Guaisa in part. We

found a typographical error in our

calculation of the correct roses

cultivated area. However, the rose area

calculated by Guaisa that it requested

the Department use in its recalculation

is incorrect. Accordingly, we have

corrected the typographical error we

found in our original calculation and

rejected the figure calculated by Guaisa.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by these

investigations are fresh cut roses,

including sweethearts or miniatures,

intermediates, and hybrid teas, whether

imported as individual blooms (stems)

or in bouquets or bunches. Loose rose

foliage (greens), loose rose petals and

detached buds are excluded from these

investigations. Roses are classifiable

under subheadings 0603.10.6010 and

0603.10.6090 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes.

The written description of the scope of

these investigations is dispositive.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1673b,

we are directing the U.S. Customs
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13961

Service to continue to suspend

liquidation of all entries of fresh cut

roses from Colombia and Ecuador, as

defined in the ‘‘Scope of 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. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond on all entries equal to the

estimated weighted-average amount by

which the foreign market value of the

merchandise subject to this

investigation exceeds United States

price as shown in the table below. The

following is a list of all the final

margins, including the amended final

margins, in these investigations.

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin

percent

Colombia

Flores Mocari S.A. (and its related farms Cultivos Miramonte and Devor Colombia) ............................................................................ 2.86

Rosex (and its related farms Rosex Ltda. La Esquina and Paraiso Farms), Induflora Ltda., and Rosas Sausalito Ltda.) ................... 2.44

Grupo Prisma (and its related farms Flores del Campo Ltda., Flores Prisma S.A., Flores Acuarela S.A., Flores el Pincel S.A.,

Rosas del Colombia Ltda., Agropecuaria Cuernavaca Ltda.) ............................................................................................................. 0.00

Grupo Bojaca (and its related farms Agricola Bojaca Ltda., Universal Flowers, and Plantas y Flores Tropicales Ltda. (Tropifora)) ... 20.66

Caicedo Group (and its related farms Agrobosque, Productos el Rosal S.A., Productos el Zorro S.A., Exportaciones Bochia S.A. -

Flora Ltda., Flores del Cauca, Aranjuez S.A., Andalucia S.A., Inverfloral S.A., and Great America Bouquet) ................................. 15.07

Grupo Intercontinental (and its related farms Flora Intercontinental and Flores Aguablanca) ............................................................... 3.92

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.53

Ecuador

Arbusta-Agritab (and its related farms Agrisabe, Agritab, and Flaris) .................................................................................................... 4.01

Guanguilqui Agro Industrial S.A. (and its related farm Indipasisa) ......................................................................................................... 14.29

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.41

These amended final determinations

are published in accordance with

section 751(f) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.28(c).

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6403 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–811]

Final Negative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Disposable Pocket

Lighters From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Graham, Office of

Countervailing Investigations, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4105.

Final Determination. The Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

determines that no benefits which

constitute subsidies within the meaning

of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), are being

provided to manufacturers, producers,

or exporters in Thailand of disposable

pocket lighters.

Case History

Since the publication of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register, 59 FR 40525 (August

9, 1994), the following events have

occurred.

On September 13, 1994, at petitioner’s

request, we extended the final

determination in this investigation to

coincide with the final determination in

the companion antidumping

investigation (59 FR 46961).

On November 3, 1994, respondents

requested that the Department postpone

the final antidumping and

countervailing duty determinations.

Therefore, on November 16, 1994, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice postponing the final

antidumping and countervailing duty

determinations until no later than

March 8, 1995 (59 FR 59211).

We conducted verification of the

responses submitted on behalf of the

Government of Thailand (GOT) and

Thai Merry Co., Ltd. (Thai Merry) from

October 17–18, and on October 28,

1994, respectively. We received case

briefs on February 23, 1995, from

petitioner and respondent, and received

a rebuttal brief from respondent on

March 1, 1995.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are disposable pocket

lighters, whether or not refillable, whose

fuel is butane, isobutane, propane, or

other liquified hydrocarbon, or a

mixture containing any of these, whose

vapor pressure at 75 degrees fahrenheit

(24 degrees Celsius) exceeds a gauge

pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.

Non-refillable pocket lighters are

imported under subheading

9613.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Refillable, disposable

pocket lighters would be imported

under subheading 9613.220.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

References to the Countervailing

Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Request for Public Comments, 54

FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations), which were withdrawn on

January 3, 1995 (60 FR 80), are provided

solely for further explanation of the

Department’s CVD practice. The subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

Injury Test

Although Thailand is not a ‘‘country

under the Agreement’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff