Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices 18377

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This amendment of final results of

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(e) of the Tariff Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(e)) and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: April 11, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–10113 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–201–820]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes From

Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Brinkmann at (202) 482–5288 or

Michelle Frederick at (202) 482–0186,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA).

The Petition

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.12(c), an

antidumping duty petition must be filed

at the Department of Commerce (the

Department) and the U.S. International

Trade Commission (ITC) on the same

day. In this instance, the ITC does not

consider the petition covering fresh

tomatoes from Mexico to have been filed

until April 1, 1996. As such, the

Department considers the petition as

having been filed in proper form on

April 1, 1996, not March 29, 1996.

The petitioners filed supplements to

the petition, including an amended list

of petitioners, on April 11 and 17, 1996.

The petitioners in this investigation are:

the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange;

the Florida Tomato Exchange; the

Tomato Committee of the Florida Fruit

and Vegetable Association; the South

Carolina Tomato Association; the

Gadsden County Tomato Growers

Association; and an Ad Hoc Group of

Florida, California, Georgia,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and

Virginia Tomato Growers, as detailed in

Exhibit 5 of the April 11, 1996,

supplement.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

within the meaning of section 731 of the

Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring, or threatening

material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioners state that they have

standing to file the petition because they

are interested parties as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act

requires that the Department determine,

prior to the initiation of an

investigation, that a minimum

percentage of the domestic industry

supports an antidumping petition. A

petition meets these minimum

requirements if the domestic producers

or workers who support the petition

account for (1) at least 25 percent of the

total production of the domestic like

product; and (2) more than 50 percent

of the production of the domestic like

product produced by that portion of the

industry expressing support for, or

opposition to, the petition.

One producer has informed the

Department that it takes no position

regarding this antidumping petition and

a second producer has stated that it

opposes the petition. On April 16, 1996,

we received a letter on behalf of the

Confederacion de Asociaciones

Agricolas de Estado de Sinaloa

(CAADES), an association of producers

of fresh tomatoes in Mexico. The

CAADES objections focus on the level of

individual supporters of the petition

and did not address the support of the

Florida and South Carolina trade

associations.

Our review of the production data

provided in the petition and other

information readily available to the

Department indicates that the

petitioners and supporters of the

petition account for more than 50

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product, thus meeting the

standard of 732(c)(4)(A) and requiring

no further action by the Department

pursuant to 732(c)(4)(D). Accordingly,

the Department determines that the

petition is supported by the domestic

industry.

Several supporters of the petition did

not agree to release their identities to

the public. The production data of these

supporters was not necessary to

establish that the petitioners account for

more than 50 percent of the total

production of the domestic like product.

For this reason, we are not determining

whether to consider non-public

supporters of a petition in establishing

industry support.

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are all fresh or chilled

tomatoes (fresh tomatoes) except for

those tomatoes which are for processing.

For purposes of this investigation,

processing is defined to include

preserving by any commercial process,

such as canning, dehydrating, drying or

the addition of chemical substances, or

converting the tomato product into

juices, sauces or purees. Further,

imports of fresh tomatoes for processing

are accompanied by an ‘‘Importer’s

Exempt Commodity Form’’ (FV–6)

(within the meaning of 7 CFR section

980.501(a)(2) and 980.212(i)). Fresh

tomatoes that are imported for cutting

up, not further processed (e.g., tomatoes

used in the preparation of fresh salsa or

salad bars), and not accompanied by an

FV–6 form are covered by the scope of

this investigation.

All commercially-grown tomatoes

sold in the United States, both for the

fresh market and for processing, are

classified as Lycopersicon esculentum.

Important commercial varieties of fresh

tomatoes include common round,

cherry, plum, and pear tomatoes.

Tomatoes imported from Mexico

covered by this investigation are

classified under the following

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedules of the United States (HTS),

according to the season of importation:

0702.00.20, 0702.00.40, 0702.00.60, and

9906.07.01 through 9906.07.09.

Although the HTS numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Export Price and Normal Value

The petitioners based export prices on

prices published by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) Marketing

Service. These prices represented

packed, F.O.B. shipping point prices,
18378 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices

duties, and border crossing charges paid

for mature green, vine ripe, and plum

tomatoes of various sizes imported from

Mexico through Nogales, Arizona. The

petitioners made deductions to export

price for movement expenses and

commissions. They provided additional

export price calculations incorporating

adjustments for ‘‘backbilling’’ (post-sale

price protection adjustments), quality

mix differentials, and price

‘‘overstatements’’ based on differences

between USDA data and Bureau of

Census import statistics.

The petitioners based normal value on

wholesale prices for vine ripe and plum

tomatoes from several wholesale

markets in Mexico, as published by the

USDA marketing service. The

petitioners made adjustments to home

market prices for wholesaler markups,

commissions, and movement expenses.

To calculate monthly normal values

for comparisons to monthly export

prices, the petitioners based normal

value on both home market prices and

constructed value (CV) because, in

accordance with Section 773(b)(2) of the

Act, the petitioners alleged that some

sales of fresh tomatoes in the home

market were made at prices below the

cost of production (COP), and therefore

are not an appropriate basis for

calculating normal value.

The petitioners calculated COP using

data derived from cost studies of vineripe tomato production in Mexico

prepared by the USDA, which relied on

cost studies reported by an association

of Mexican tomato producers. Where

appropriate, the petitioners adjusted the

cost data for inflation, changes in

interest rates, and currency conversion.

We adjusted the petitioners’ COP by

correcting the deduction for selling

expenses.

The allegation that the Mexican

producers are selling the foreign like

product in the home market at prices

below its COP is based upon a

comparison of the adjusted home

market prices with the calculated COP.

Based on this comparison, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made at prices below COP in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i)

of the Act. Accordingly, the Department

is initiating a country-wide cost

investigation.

Therefore, for the purposes of this

initiation, we are accepting CV as the

appropriate basis for Mexican normal

value for those petition margin

examples where the petitioners claimed

that there are no above-cost sales in the

home market. The petitioners based CV

on its COP methodology, described

above, deducting commission and

export transportation expenses included

in these costs, and adding an amount for

profit to derive a total CV. The

petitioners calculated profit based on

above-cost Mexican market prices. We

revised CV by incorporating the

correction to selling expenses deducted

from COP. We also recalculated the

profit amount used in CV based on a

revised database of above cost sales in

the home market.

Based on comparisons of export

prices, with deductions for backbilling

adjustments and ‘‘price

overstatements,’’ to normal value (with

CV revised as discussed above), the

petitioners allege margins of 12.86

percent to 273.42 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of fresh tomatoes from

Mexico are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value. If it becomes

necessary at a later date to consider the

petition as a source of facts available

under section 776 of the Act, we may

further review the margin calculations

in the petition.

Initiation of Investigation

We have examined the petition on

fresh tomatoes and have found that it

meets the requirements of section 732 of

the Act, including the requirements

concerning allegations of material injury

or threat of material injury to the

domestic producers of a domestic like

product by reason of the complained-of

imports, allegedly sold at less than fair

value. Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of fresh

tomatoes from Mexico are being, or are

likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Unless extended, we will make our

preliminary determination by

September 5, 1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

Government of Mexico. Because of the

large number of exporters, we will

attempt to provide a copy of the public

version of the petition to the relevant

trade associations representing

exporters of fresh tomatoes named in

the petition.

International Trade Commission (ITC)

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 16,

1996, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of fresh

tomatoes from Mexico are causing

material injury, or threatening to cause

material injury, to a U.S. industry. A

negative ITC determination will result

in the investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

Dated: April 18, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–10112 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Requests for Revocation

in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews and Requests

for Revocation in Part.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has received requests

to conduct administrative reviews of

various antidumping and countervailing

duty orders and findings with March

anniversary dates. In accordance with

the Department’s regulations, we are

initiating those administrative reviews.

The Department also received requests

to revoke one antidumping duty order

in part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holly A. Kuga, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department has received timely

requests, in accordance with 19 C.F.R.

353.22(a) and 355.22(a)(1994), for

administrative reviews of various

antidumping and countervailing duty

orders and findings with March

anniversary dates. The Department also

received timely requests to revoke in

part the antidumping duty order on

steel wire rope from Korea.