Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19209

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 737]

Peavey Electronics Corp.; AL

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status,

Peavey Electronics Corporation (Electronic

Audio and Acoustical Products), Foley,

Alabama

Whereas, by an Act of Congress

approved June 18, 1934, an Act ‘‘To

provide for the establishment . . . of

foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of

the United States, to expedite and

encourage foreign commerce, and for

other purposes,’’ as amended (19 U.S.C.

81a–81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade

Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to

grant to qualified corporations the

privilege of establishing foreign-trade

zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs

ports of entry;

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15

CFR Part 400) provide for the

establishment of special-purpose

subzones when existing zone facilities

cannot serve the specific use involved;

Whereas, an application from the City

of Mobile, Alabama, grantee of ForeignTrade Zone 82, for authority to establish

special-purpose subzone status at the

electronic audio and acoustical products

manufacturing plant of the Peavey

Electronics Corporation in Foley,

Alabama, was filed by the Board on

March 3, 1994, and notice inviting

public comment was given in the

Federal Register (FTZ Docket 8–94, 59

FR 12892, 3–18–94); and,

Whereas, the Board has found that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that approval of the application is in the

public interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

authorizes the establishment of a

subzone (Subzone 82C) at the Peavey

Electronics Corporation plant in Foley,

Alabama, at the location described in

the application, subject to the FTZ Act

and the Board’s regulations, including

§ 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

April 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

Attest:

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9406 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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
19210 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

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:

Manufacturer/Exporter

Margin

(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

North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel

Reviews: Notice of Completion of

Panel Review

AGENCY: North American Free Trade

Agreement, NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Completion of Panel

Review of the final dumping