67510 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Notices

time for the Department to conduct its

verifications, issue verification reports,

and establish a briefing and hearing

schedule that would allow the

petitioner a full opportunity to review

and comment on the issues in this

investigation. On December 5, 2001,

respondent Feili Furniture Development

Co., Ltd. and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Feili Group’’) asked the Department to

reject petitioner’s request on the

grounds that the preliminary

determination was affirmative. On

December 10, 2001, respondent Shin

Crest Pte. Ltd. (‘‘Shin Crest’’) requested

that the Department postpone the final

determination and extend the period

that the provisional measures may

remain in effect from four months to not

more than six months.

In accordance with section

735(a)(2)(A) and 19 CFR

351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our

preliminary determination is

affirmative, (2) Shin Crest accounts for

a significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise, and (3) no

compelling reasons for denial exist, we

are granting the postponement request

and are postponing the final

determination until no later than 135

days after the publication of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. We are also extending

the provisional measures, from four

months to six months, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). Therefore,

the final determination would now be

due on April 17, 2002. Suspension of

liquidation will be extended

accordingly.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the

Act.

Dated: December 20, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–32115 Filed 12–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–337–806]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

IQF Red Raspberries From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value and postponement of final

determination.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine

that individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’)

red raspberries from Chile are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value, as provided in

section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended. The estimated dumping

margins are shown in the ‘‘Suspension

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on this preliminary

determination (see the ‘‘Public

Comment’’ section of this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Annika O’Hara, Cole Kyle, or Blanche

Ziv, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3798, (202) 482–1503, or (202) 482–

4207, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’’) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (April 2001).

Background

Since the initiation of this

investigation (see Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation: IQF

Red Raspberries from Chile, 66 FR

34407 (June 28, 2001) (‘‘Initiation

Notice’’)), the following events have

occurred:

On July 9 and 10, 2001, we solicited

comments from interested parties

regarding the criteria to be used for

model-matching purposes. Interested

parties filed comments from July 18,

2001 through August 3, 2001.

On July 16, 2001, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

IQF red raspberries from Chile are

materially injuring the United States

industry (66 FR 38740 (July 25, 2001)).

On July 19, 2001, we selected the

three largest producers/exporters of IQF

red raspberries from Chile as the

mandatory respondents in this

proceeding. See Memorandum to Susan

Kuhbach from Annika O’Hara entitled

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ which is on file

in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in

room B–099 of the main Department

building.

We issued antidumping

questionnaires to Comercial Fruticola

(‘‘Comfrut’’), Exportadora Frucol

(‘‘Frucol’’), and Fruticola Olmue

(‘‘Olmue’’) on August 3, 2001. We

received responses to Section A of the

questionnaire on August 31, 2001 and

responses to Sections B, C, and D on

September 25, 2001. We issued

supplemental questionnaires between

October 16 and November 30, 2001, to

which we received responses in

November and December 2001. We

received comments from the petitioners

on each of the respondents’

questionnaire responses. Subsequently,

we received comments from the

respondents on the petitioners’

comments concerning the respondents’

questionnaire responses.

On October 12, 2001, the petitioners

made a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination pursuant to

19 CFR 351.205(e). On October 18, 2001,

we postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

December 12, 2001. See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determination: IQF

Red Raspberries from Chile, 66 FR

53775 (October 24, 2001).

On December 12, 2001, the

Department further postponed the

preliminary determination in this

investigation pursuant to section

351.205(b)(2) of the regulations and

section 733 (c)(1)(B)(i)(II) of the Act due

to several novel costs issues involved in

this investigation. See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determination: IQF

Red Raspberries from Chile, 66 FR

65177 (December 18, 2001).

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

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

Act, on December 12, 2001, Comfrut,

Frucol, and Olmue, requested that, in

the event of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination in the

Federal Register, and extend the

provisional measures to not more than

six months. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our

preliminary determination is

affirmative, (2) Comfrut, Frucol, and

Olmue account for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling

reasons for denial exist, we are granting

the respondents’ request and are

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Notices 67511

postponing the final determination until

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Suspension of liquidation will

be extended accordingly.

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are imports of IQF whole

or broken red raspberries from Chile,

with or without the addition of sugar or

syrup, regardless of variety, grade, size

or horticulture method (e.g., organic or

not), the size of the container in which

packed, or the method of packing. The

scope of the investigation excludes fresh

red raspberries and block frozen red

raspberries (i.e., puree, straight pack,

juice stock, and juice concentrate).

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written

description of the merchandise under

investigation is dispositive.

Comments on the Scope

On August 30, 2001, the respondents

filed a letter with the Department

seeking confirmation that frozen

raspberries known as ‘‘dirty crumbles’’

are not covered by the scope of this

investigation. On September 12, 2001,

the petitioners submitted a letter

opposing the respondents’

interpretation of the scope. The parties’

arguments are summarized in a

September 26, 2001, memorandum to

Susan Kuhbach from the Team, in

which the Department determined that

‘‘dirty crumbles’’ are included in the

scope of this investigation. This

memorandum is on file in the CRU.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of IQF red

raspberries from Chile to the United

States were made at less than fair value

(‘‘LTFV’’), we compared the export price

(‘‘EP’’) to the normal value, as described

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI weighted-average EPs to

NVs.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced and sold by the respondents

in the comparison market during the

POI that fit the description in the

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ section of

this notice to be foreign like products

for purposes of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales. We

compared U.S. sales to sales of identical

merchandise in the comparison market

made in the ordinary course of trade,

where possible. Where there were no

sales of identical merchandise in the

comparison market made in the

ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to

sales of the most similar foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of

trade. To determine the appropriate

product comparisons, we considered the

following physical characteristics of the

products in order of importance: grade;

variety; form; cultivation method; and

additives.

Export Price

For all respondents, we calculated EP,

in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the merchandise was sold

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation by

the exporter or producer outside the

United States, or to an unaffiliated

purchaser for exportation to the United

States. We based EP on the packed exfactory, C&F, FOB, or delivered price to

the unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. We made deductions

from the starting price for movement

expenses, including inland freight,

warehousing, marine insurance,

brokerage and handling, and

international freight, in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where

appropriate. We increased EP, where

appropriate, for duty drawback in

accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of

the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared each

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to its

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

Comfrut, Frucol, and Olmue reported

that their home market sales of IQF red

raspberries during the POI were less

than five percent of their sales of IQF

red raspberries in the United States.

Therefore, none of the three respondents

had a viable home market for purposes

of calculating normal value. Comfrut

and Frucol reported that the United

Kingdom was their largest viable third

country market, and Olmue reported

that France was its largest viable third

country market. Accordingly, Comfrut

and Frucol reported their sales to the

United Kingdom and Olmue reported its

sales to France for purposes of

calculating normal value.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

Based on our analysis of an allegation

contained in the petition, we found at

the initiation of this investigation that

there were reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that the respondents’

sales of the subject merchandise in their

respective comparison markets were

made at prices below their cost of

production (‘‘COP’’). Accordingly,

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we

initiated a country-wide sales-belowcost investigation (see Initiation Notice,

66 FR 34409).

1. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of the cost of materials and

fabrication of the foreign like product,

plus an amount for general and

administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’),

interest expenses, and comparison

market packing costs (see the ‘‘Test of

Comparison Market Sales Prices’’

section below for treatment of

comparison market selling expenses).

We relied on the COP data submitted by

the respondents, except where noted

below:

Comfrut:

a. We revised Comfrut’s interest

expense to include the current portion

of the net loss on monetary correction.

b. We revised Comfrut’s affiliated

processor’s reported costs for two items.

First, we revised the affiliate’s interest

expense to include the current portion

of the net loss on monetary correction.

Second, we weight-averaged the

affiliated processor’s revised COP. We

then increased Comfrut’s costs to

include the higher of the transfer price

or cost of the major input, processing

services. See December 20, 2001,

Calculation Memorandum for Comfrut,

for further information.

Frucol:

a. We increased the per-unit

conversion costs using the correct total

quantity of raspberries processed. Also,

we increased the total cost of

manufacturing to include all of the

affiliated processor’s expenses shown

on its tax return. We used the tax return

as the basis of costs for the affiliated

processor because it does not prepare

any financial statements.

b. We revised the combined general

and administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses to

include land rent associated with the

processing plant and general expenses.

67512 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Notices

1The marketing process in the United States and

comparison markets begins with the producer and

extends to the sale to the final user or customer.

The chain of distribution between the two may have

many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur

somewhere along this chain. In performing this

evaluation, we considered the narrative responses

of each respondent to properly determine where in

the chain of distribution the sale appears to occur.

2Selling functions associated with a particular

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s)

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of this

preliminary determination, we have organized the

common selling functions into four major

categories: sales process and marketing support,

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing,

and quality assurance/warranty services. Other

selling functions unique to specific companies were

considered, as appropriate.

3Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we

derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV,

where possible.

We increased the cost of goods sold

used in the denominator of the rate

calculation to include the additional

expenses shown on the affiliated

processor’s tax return.

c. We revised the combined interest

expense to include the current portion

of the net loss on monetary correction.

We increased the cost of goods sold

used in the denominator of the rate

calculation to include the additional

expenses shown on the affiliated

processor’s tax return.

See Memorandum from Aleta Habeeb

to Neal Halper, Director Office of

Accounting, dated December 19, 2001,

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed

Value Calculation Adjustments for the

Preliminary Determination.’’

Olmue:

We revised Olmue’s interest expense

to include the current portion of the net

loss on monetary correction. See

December 20, 2001, Calculation

Memorandum for Olmue for further

information.

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales

Prices

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the comparison market

sales of the foreign like product, as

required under section 773(b) of the Act,

in order to determine whether the sale

prices were below the COP. The prices

were exclusive of any applicable

movement charges, billing adjustments,

commissions, warranty expenses, and

other direct and indirect selling

expenses. In determining whether to

disregard home market sales made at

prices less than their COP, we

examined, in accordance with sections

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether

such sales were made (1) within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, and (2) at prices which

permitted the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where

less than 20 percent of a respondent’s

sales of a given product during the POI

are at prices less than the COP, we do

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product, because we determine that

in such instances the below-cost sales

were not made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more

of a respondent’s sales of a given

product during the POI are at prices less

than the COP, we determine that the

below-cost sales represent ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time, in accordance with section

773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases,

we also determine whether such sales

were made at prices which would not

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that for each respondent,

for certain specific products, more than

20 percent of the comparison market

sales were at prices less than the COP

and thus the below-cost sales were

made within an extended period of time

in substantial quantities. In addition,

these sales were made at prices that did

not provide for the recovery of costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

therefore excluded these sales and used

the remaining sales, if any, as the basis

for determining NV, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1).

For Comfrut and Olmue’s U.S. sales of

subject merchandise for which there

were no comparable comparison market

sales in the ordinary course of trade

(e.g., sales that passed the cost test), we

compared those sales to constructed

value (‘‘CV’’), in accordance with

section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

C. Calculation of Constructed Value

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides

that where NV cannot be based on

comparison-market sales, NV may be

based on CV. Accordingly, for Comfrut

and Olmue, when sales of comparison

products could not be found, either

because there were no sales of a

comparable product or all sales of the

comparable products failed the COP

test, we based NV on CV.

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated

CV based on the sum of the cost of

materials and fabrication for the subject

merchandise, plus amounts for selling

expenses, G&A, including interest,

profit and U.S. packing costs. We made

the same adjustments to the CV costs as

described in the ‘‘Calculation of COP’’

section of this notice. In accordance

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we

based selling expenses, G&A and profit

on the amounts incurred and realized by

the respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

for consumption in the foreign country.

D. Level of Trade

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act

states that, to the extent practicable, the

Department will calculate NV based on

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’)

as the EP. Sales are made at different

LOTs if they are made at different

marketing stages (or their equivalent) 19

CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial

differences in selling activities are a

necessary, but not sufficient, condition

for determining that there is a difference

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November

19, 1997). In order to determine whether

the comparison sales were at different

stages in the marketing process than the

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain

of distribution’’),1 including selling

functions,2 class of customer (‘‘customer

category’’), and the level of selling

expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for

EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,

NV based on either home market or

third country prices 3), we consider the

starting prices before any adjustments.

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United

States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed.

Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology).

When the Department is unable to

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign

like product in the comparison market

at the same LOT as the EP, the

Department may compare the U.S. sale

to sales at a different LOT in the

comparison market. In comparing EP

sales at a different LOT in the

comparison market, where available

data show that the difference in LOT

affects price comparability, we make a

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Comfrut and Frucol have reported

that they sell to distributors in both the

comparison market and in the United

States. Olmue has reported that it sells

to trading companies and end users in

the comparison market and to trading

companies and distributors in the

United States. Each respondent has

reported a single channel of distribution

and a single level of trade in each

market, and has not requested a level of

trade adjustment. We examined the

information reported by the respondents

regarding their marketing processes for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Notices 67513

4We normally make currency conversions into

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of

the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the

dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank. In this case, where costs and

expenses were reported in Chilean pesos, we made

currency conversions based on the exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as reported

by the Dow Jones because the Federal Reserve Bank

does not track the Chilean peso-to-dollar exchange

rate.

making the reported home market and

U.S. sales, including the type and level

of selling activities performed and

customer categories. See December 19

and 20, 2001, Calculation Memorandum

for Comfrut, Frucol, and Olmue for

further information. As Comfrut, Frucol,

and Olmue have reported, we found a

single level of trade in the United States,

and a single, identical level of trade in

the comparison market. Thus, it was

unnecessary to make any LOT

adjustment for comparison of EP and

third country prices.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Comparison Market Prices

We calculated NV based on ex-factory

or delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers in the comparison market.

We made adjustments to the starting

price for interest revenue and billing

adjustments, where appropriate. We

made deductions for movement

expenses, including inland freight,

warehousing, brokerage and handling

expenses, and international freight,

under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.

In addition, we made adjustments under

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and

19 CFR 351.410 for differences in

circumstances of sale for imputed credit

expenses, commissions, warranties, and

other direct selling expenses, where

appropriate.

Furthermore, we made adjustments

for differences in costs attributable to

differences in the physical

characteristics of the merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also

deducted comparison market packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B) of the Act.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Constructed Value

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We

made adjustments to CV for differences

in circumstances of sale in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act

and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we

added U.S. packing costs.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars in accordance with section

773A(a) of the Act based on the

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as reported by the Dow

Jones.4

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our preliminary

determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise (except

for entries of Comfrut or Frucol because

these companies have de minimis and

zero margins, respectively) that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart

below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average

margin percentage

Comercial Fruticola ... 0.31 (de minimis)

Exportadora Frucol .... 0.00

Fruticola Olmue ......... 5.54

All Others ................... 5.54

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A), we

have excluded from the calculation of

the all-others rate margins which are

zero or de minimis. 

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Disclosure

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties in this

proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR

351.224(b).

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the last verification

report. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities relied upon, a table of

contents, and an executive summary of

issues should accompany any briefs

submitted to the Department. Executive

summaries should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. Section

774 of the Act provides that the

Department will hold a public hearing

to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs,

provided that such a hearing is

requested by an interested party. If a

request for a hearing is made in this

investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

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. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

We will make our final determination

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of

the Act.

Dated: December 20, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–32112 Filed 12–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–834]

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils

From the Republic of Korea: Notice of

Preliminary Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.