[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19209-19210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9407]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-601]


Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Floral Trade Council 
(petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh 
cut flowers from Mexico. The review covers four producers/exporters, 
Rancho El Aguaje (Aguaje), Rancho Guacatay (Guacatay), Rancho El Toro 
(Toro), and Visaflor S. de P.R. (Visaflor), and entries of the subject 
merchandise into the United States during the period April 1, 1991, 
through March 31, 1992. We have preliminarily determined that dumping 
margins exist for three of these producers. The Department based these 
margins on the best information available (BIA). The fourth company, 
Visaflor, made no shipments during the period of review (POR).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 8, 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(57 FR 11935) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative 
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on fresh cut flowers from Mexico 
(52 FR 13491, April 23, 1987). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), 
the petitioner requested an administrative review for Aguaje, Guacatay, 
Toro, and Visaflor. On May 22, 1993, the Department published a notice 
of initiation of this review (51 FR 21769) covering the period April 1, 
1991, through March 31, 1992. Visaflor stated that it did not ship 
subject merchandise from Mexico to the United States during the POR. 
The Department has now conducted this review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    Because the Department determined during the prior administrative 
review that Guacatay had made sales in the home market below the cost 
of production (COP), we initiated a COP investigation with respect to 
Guacatay on October 10, 1992.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are certain fresh cut flowers, 
defined as standard carnations, standard chrysanthemums, and pompon 
chrysanthemums. During the POR, such merchandise was classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 
0603.10.7010 (pompon chrysanthemums), 0603.10.7020 (standard 
chrysanthemums), and 0603.10.7030 (standard carnations). The HTSUS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The 
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the order.
    This review covers sales of the subject merchandise manufactured by 
Aguaje, Guacatay, Toro, and Visaflor, and entered into the United 
States during the period April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992.

Best Information Available

    The Department has determined that the data submitted by Aguaje, 
Toro, and Guacatay are unusable for the following reasons. The original 
questionnaire responses they submitted included unaudited, ``in-house'' 
financial statements. The respondents reported that they were not 
legally obligated to file income tax returns on sales made during the 
POR. In response to a supplemental questionnaire sent to all three 
companies, the respondents indicated that they were, in fact, obligated 
to file income tax returns covering the POR because of a change in 
Mexican law.
    In an additional supplemental questionnaire, the Department asked 
the respondents to submit copies of these tax returns, and to reconcile 
them to the unaudited ``in-house'' financial [[Page 19210]] statements 
previously submitted to the Department. Toro and Guacatay submitted 
copies of their income tax returns; however, they failed to reconcile 
them with their unaudited financial statements. The remaining 
respondent, Aguaje, claimed it could not substantiate or reconcile the 
cost data contained in its unaudited financial statement because it had 
not filed its income tax returns for the POR, as required by the 
Mexican government. Although Aguaje claimed that it had not filed its 
returns, it provided no evidence to demonstrate that it was exempt from 
filing.
    The Department relies on the accounting system used in the 
preparation of the audited financial statements to ensure that a 
company's submitted sales and cost data are credible. An ``in-house'' 
system which has not been audited, and is not used for tax purposes or 
for any purpose other than internal deliberations of the company, does 
not assure the Department that costs have been stated in accordance 
with generally accepted accounting principles, or that all sales and 
costs have been appropriately captured by the ``in-house'' system. (See 
Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Korea, 58 FR 37186 (July 9, 1993).)
    For prior review periods, respondents were not required under 
Mexican law to maintain audited financial statements or file tax 
returns. We accepted respondents' unaudited ``in-house'' statements in 
prior reviews because they did not have, and therefore could not 
submit, official corroboration of their internal records. (See Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 FR 29621, 59622-23 (June 28, 1991).) 
However, Mexican law governing income tax reporting changed in 1991, 
and the respondents were required to have filed tax returns covering 
the POR. Because respondents made inconsistent statements regarding 
their obligation to file taxes, and further, failed to reconcile their 
financial statements to their tax records as requested by the 
Department, we rejected respondents' data in their entirety.
    For the reasons stated above, the Department determines that 
Aguaje, Guacatay, and Toro are uncooperative respondents. As a result, 
in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have determined that 
the use of BIA is appropriate. Whenever, as here, a company refuses to 
cooperate with the Department, or otherwise significantly impedes an 
antidumping proceeding, we use as BIA the higher of (1) the highest of 
the rates found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise 
in the same country of origin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation or in prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest 
rate found in this review for any firm for the same class or kind of 
merchandise. (See Antifriction Bearings from France, et al.; Final 
Results of Review, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993).) As BIA, we assigned 
the rate of 39.95 percent, which is the second highest rate found for 
any Mexican flower producer from both the prior reviews and the LTFV 
investigation. We have selected this rate because the highest rate 
found for any Mexican flower producer in prior reviews and the LTFV 
investigation, 264.43 percent, is an aberrational rate not 
representative of the market. This rate was due to a company's 
extraordinarily high business expenses during the review period 
resulting from investment activities which were uncharacteristic of the 
other reviewed companies. Therefore, we found it inappropriate to use 
this rate as BIA, both in the prior review and in this review. (See 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 FR 29621, 29623 (June 28, 
1991).) We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist for the period April 1, 1991, through March 31, 1992:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranch el Aguaje..............................................      39.95
Rancho Guacatay..............................................      39.95
Rancho el Toro...............................................      39.95
Visaflor.....................................................    \1\0   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments during the POR. Rate is from the last review in which   
  Visaflor had shipments.                                               

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the 
publication date of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the result of its analysis of issues raised in any such case 
briefs.
    The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse for consumption, on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies shall be those rates established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
shall be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the 
cash deposit rate will be 18.28 percent, the all others rate 
established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 
of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: April 7, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-9407 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P