Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13903

1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), PT Dieng

Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa were

determined to be affiliated companies in the

original less-than-fair-value investigation, and

therefore the two companies submitted a combined

review request and questionnaire response.

2See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain

Preserved Mushroom from Indonesia, 64 FR 8310

(February 19, 1999).

The Department will issue the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any written briefs, not

later than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

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, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of 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 issues to be

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. The final

results of this review shall be the basis

for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the final results of this

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties. We will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries covered

by this review if any importer-specific

assessment rate calculated in the final

results of this review is above de

minimis (i.e., 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)). For

assessment purposes, we intend to

calculate importer-specific assessment

rates for the subject merchandise by

aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales examined

and dividing this amount by the total

entered value of the sales examined.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 will be those established in

the final results of this review, except if

the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and

therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(C)(1), in

which case the cash deposit rate will be

zero; (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

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 11.30

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) 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 published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.221. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5620 Filed 3–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–560–802]

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From

Indonesia: 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

three manufacturers/exporters of the

subject merchandise: PT Dieng Djaya

and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa,1 PT

Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp.,

and PT Zeta Agro Corporation, and by

The Pillsbury Company, an importer of

the merchandise under review, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

preserved mushrooms from Indonesia.

The periods of reviews are August 5,

1998, through January 31, 2000, for PT

Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. and

PT Zeta Agro Corporation, and

December 31, 1998 through January 31,

2000, for PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya

Jaya Abadi Perkasa 2.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Sophie E. Castro,

Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I,

Import Administration-Room B–099,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4136 or (202) 482–0588,

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 (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s

(the Department’s) regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On December 31, 1998, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (63 FR 72268), the final

affirmative antidumping duty

determination of sales at less than fair

value (LTFV) on certain preserved

mushrooms from Indonesia. We

published an antidumping duty order

on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8310).

On February 14, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice advising of the opportunity to

13904 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

3The petitioners are the Coalition for Fair

Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the

American Mushroom Institute and the following

domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc.,

Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushrooms Farms, Inc.,

Toughkernamon, PA; Monterrey Mushrooms, Inc.,

Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp.,

Temple, PA; Mushrooms Canning Company,

Kennett Square, PA; Southwood Farms, Hockessin,

DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; United

Canning Corp., North Lima, OH.

request an administrative review of this

order for the period August 5, 1998,

through January 31, 2000 (65 FR 7348).

On February 29, 2000, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b), three

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise, PT Dieng Djaya and PT

Surya Jaya Abadi (Dieng/Surya), PT

Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp.

(Indo Evergreen) and PT Zeta Agro

Corporation (Zeta) as well as one

importer of the subject merchandise,

The Pillsbury Company, requested that

the Department conduct an

administrative review of exports to the

United States by Dieng/Surya, Indo

Evergreen and Zeta. We published a

notice of initiation of the review on

March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16875).

On March 29, 2000, the Department

issued an antidumping questionnaire to

Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen, and Zeta.

We issued supplemental questionnaires

in July, September, and October 2000,

and in January 2001. In May and July

through October 2000, we received

timely responses to the original and

supplemental questionnaires. Dieng

responded to an additional

supplemental questionnaire in February

2001.

In June 2000, we received below-costsales allegations for Indo Evergreen and

Zeta from the petitioners, the Coalition

for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade.3 In

July 2000, we initiated a sales-belowcost investigation for both Indo

Evergreen and Zeta.

On July 28, 2000, due to the reasons

set forth in the Notice of Extension of

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from

Indonesia, 65 FR 46426 (July 28, 2000),

we extended the due date for the

preliminary results. In accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we

extended the due date for the

preliminary results by the maximum

120 days allowable.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are certain preserved mushrooms,

whether imported whole, sliced, diced,

or as stems and pieces. The preserved

mushrooms covered under this review

are the species Agaricus bisporus and

Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that

have been prepared or preserved by

cleaning, blanching, and sometimes

slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are

then packed and heated in containers

including but not limited to cans or

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium,

including but not limited to water,

brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved

mushrooms may be imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

Included within the scope of this review

are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are

presalted and packed in a heavy salt

solution to provisionally preserve them

for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this

review are the following: (1) All other

species of mushroom, including straw

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’; (3) dried

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified’’ or

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are

prepared or preserved by means of

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain

oil or other additives.

The merchandise subject to this

review is classifiable under subheadings

2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031,

2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043,

2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and

0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’).

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this review is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales to the

United States of certain preserved

mushrooms by Dieng/Surya, Indo

Evergreen and Zeta were made at less

than normal value, we compared export

price to the normal value, as described

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice.

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the

Act, we compared the export prices of

individual U.S. transactions to the

weighted-average normal value of the

foreign like product where there were

sales made in the ordinary course of

trade at prices above the cost of

production (COP), as discussed in the

‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section

below.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by Indo Evergreen and Zeta,

covered by the description in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section, above,

sold by the respondents in the home

market during the period of review

(‘‘POR’’), to be foreign like products for

purposes of determining appropriate

product comparisons to U.S. sales. We

compared U.S. sales to sales made in the

home market within the

contemporaneous window period,

which extends from three months prior

to the U.S. sale until two months after

the sale. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

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. Where there

were no sales of identical or similar

merchandise in the home market to

compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to the constructed value of the

product.

In making the product comparisons,

we matched foreign like products based

on the physical characteristics reported

by the respondents in the following

order: preservation method, container

type, mushroom style, weight, grade,

container solution and label type.

For Dieng/Surya, we compared U.S.

sales to the constructed value of the

product because Dieng/Surya had

insufficient home market and third

country sales during the POR. See

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below for

further discussion.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine normal value

based on sales in the comparison market

at the same level of trade (LOT) as the

export price or constructed export price

(CEP) transaction. The normal value

LOT is that of the starting-price sales in

the comparison market or, when normal

value is based on constructed value, that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general and administrative

(SG&A) expenses and profit. For export

price, the U.S. LOT is also the level of

the starting-price sale, which is usually

from the exporter to an unaffiliated U.S.

customer. For CEP, it is the level of the

constructed sale from the exporter to an

affiliated importer, after the deductions

required under section 772(d) of the

Act. To determine whether normal

value sales are at a LOT different from

export price or CEP, we examine stages

in the marketing process and selling

functions along the chain of distribution

between the producer and the

unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which normal

value is based and comparison-market

sales at the LOT of the export

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13905

transaction, we make a LOT adjustment

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

For CEP sales, if the normal value level

is more remote from the factory than the

CEP level, and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

the levels between normal value and

CEP affects price comparability, we

adjust normal value under section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset

provision). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In this review, all three respondents

made only export price sales during the

POR. In their questionnaire responses

all three respondents reported that

comparison-market and export price

sales to the unaffiliated customers were

made at the same LOT. Furthermore, the

respondents maintain that selling

activities in both markets are identical.

Although the information pertaining to

selling functions on the record is

limited, it does not appear to warrant

granting a LOT adjustment.

Export Price

For all three respondents we used

export price calculation methodology,

in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly by the producer/

exporter in Indonesia to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and CEP

treatment was not otherwise indicated.

We calculated export price based on

the packed FOB seaport prices charged

to the first unaffiliated customer in the

United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, foreign inland insurance, and

brokerage and handling, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating normal value, we

compared the respondents’ volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product to the volume of U.S. sales of

the subject merchandise, in accordance

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

Evergreen and Zeta’s aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.

Therefore, we determined that the home

market provides a viable basis for

calculating normal value for both

Evergreen and Zeta.

Dieng/Surya reported that its

aggregate volumes of home market and

third country market sales, respectively,

were less than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise. Petitioners allege

that Dieng/Surya refused to provide

complete information concerning its

home market and third country sales in

a timely fashion and may have

overstated its U.S. sales figures for

purposes of the viability test in an effort

to avoid reporting third country price

information. While we acknowledge the

petitioners’ allegation, we note that in

this case Dieng/Surya has complied

with our request for information as

stated in our antidumping questionnaire

on page A–2. Should its home market

sales not be viable for purposes of

calculating normal value, our

questionnaire directs respondents to

provide sales to each of their three

largest third country markets, provided

each market meets the five-percent

threshold. In this case, since none of

Dieng/Surya’s third country markets

reaches that threshold, Dieng was not

required to provide a section B

questionnaire response for its third

country sales. In addition, we note that

Dieng/Surya’s reporting in this review is

consistent with that in the LTFV

investigation; in the LTFV investigation,

the Department verified that Dieng/

Surya did not have a viable home

market or third country market during

the period of investigation. For these

reasons, we determined that neither the

home market nor any third country

market was a viable basis for calculating

normal value for Dieng/Surya. As a

result, we used constructed value as the

basis for calculating normal value for

Dieng/Surya, in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

Arm’s-Length Sales

Indo Evergreen and Zeta each

reported a small percentage of sales of

the foreign like product to affiliated

customers. To test whether these sales

to affiliated customers were made at

arm’s length, where possible, we

compared the prices of sales to affiliated

and unaffiliated customers, net of all

movement charges, direct selling

expenses, discounts, and packing.

Where the price to the affiliated party

was on average 99.5 percent or more of

the price to the unaffiliated parties, we

determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party were at arm’s length. See

Preamble—Department’s Final

Antidumping Regulations, 62 FR 27,355

(May 19, 1997). Consistent with 19 CFR

351.403, we excluded from our analysis

those sales where the price to the

affiliated parties was less than 99.5

percent of the price to the unaffiliated

parties.

Cost of Production Analysis

In response to the petitioners salesbelow-cost allegations for Indo

Evergreen and Zeta, we reviewed their

allegations and determined that Indo

Evergreen’s and Zeta’s submitted data

provided reasonable grounds to believe

or suspect that sales of the foreign like

product under consideration for

determining normal value in this review

may have been at prices below the COP,

pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. See July 7, 2000, Memorandum

from the Team to Louis Apple, Office

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Group 1,

Office 2, Re: Request to Initiate Cost

Investigation for Respondents P.T. Zeta

Agro Corporation and PT Indo

Evergreen Agrobusiness Corporation.

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, we initiated a sales-belowcost investigation of sales made by

Evergreen and Zeta.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of Indo Evergreen’s and Zeta’s

cost of materials and fabrication for the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home-market SG&A, interest expenses,

and the cost of all expenses incidental

to placing the foreign like product in

condition packed ready for shipment.

We relied on the home market sales and

cost of production information Indo

Evergreen and Zeta provided in their

questionnaire responses, except for the

following adjustments:

For Indo Evergreen, we adjusted the

cost of manufacture for beginning and

ending work-in-process. We revised

Indo Evergreen’s interest expense rate

calculation by excluding foreign

exchange gains and losses related to the

non-current portion of long-term debt

and reclassifying foreign exchange gains

on accounts payable to general and

administrative (G&A) expense. In

addition, we included certain other

foreign exchange gains and losses and

other miscellaneous items in their G&A

rate calculation. For Zeta, we adjusted

the reported production quantities by

deducting waste production quantities.

This reduction in production quantities

resulted in higher per unit cost of

manufacture (COM) for Zeta. In

addition, because Zeta did not include

interest expense on affiliated party

loans, we included an amount for

interest expense in accordance with

section 773(f)(2). We also reclassified

foreign exchange gains on accounts

payable to G&A expense. Lastly, we

revised Zeta’s G&A expense rate

calculation by including certain other

foreign exchange gains and losses and

13906 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices

other miscellaneous items. For further

detail see Memoranda from Sheikh

Hannan to Neal Halper, dated February

28, 2001, for Indo Evergreen and Zeta.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average,

per-unit COP figures for the POR to

home market sales of the foreign like

product, as required by section 773(b) of

the Act, in order to determine whether

these sales were made at prices below

the COP. In determining whether to

disregard home market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined

whether: (1) Within an extended period

of time, such sales were made in

substantial quantities; and (2) such sales

were made at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

the home market prices, less any

applicable movement charges, rebates,

discounts and direct and indirect selling

expenses. Because Indo Evergreen and

Zeta did not report home market

indirect selling expenses, we have

derived those expenses from their

financial statements for purposes of

deducting them from home market

price. For further details see

Memorandum from Sophie Castro,

Financial Analyst, to Irene Darzenta

Tzafolias, Program Manager, Office 2,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import

Administration, dated February 28,

2001.

3. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of the

respondents’ sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where

twenty percent or more of the

respondents’’ sales of a given product

during the POR were at prices less than

the COP, we disregard the below-cost

sales where such sales were found to be

made at prices which would not permit

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time (in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act).

The results of our cost tests for Indo

Evergreen and Zeta indicated for certain

home market products that less than

twenty percent of the sales of the model

were at prices below COP. We therefore

retained all sales of these models in our

analysis and used them as the basis for

determining normal value.

Our cost tests also indicated, for both

Indo Evergreen and Zeta, that for certain

other home market products more than

twenty percent of home market sales

within an extended period of time were

at prices below COP and would not

permit the full recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. In

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act, we excluded these below-cost sales

of these models from our analysis and

used the remaining sales as the basis for

determining normal value.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For Indo Evergreen and Zeta, we

based normal value on the price at

which the foreign like product is first

sold for consumption in the exporting

country, in the usual commercial

quantities and in the ordinary course of

trade, and at the same LOT as the export

price, as defined by section

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

Home market prices were based on

either ex-factory or delivered prices. We

reduced normal value for home market

movement expenses, where appropriate,

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(B)(ii). We also reduced normal

value for packing costs incurred in the

home market, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased

normal value to account for U.S.

packing expenses in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(A). We also made

adjustments for differences in

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.410, by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

(i.e., credit) and adding U.S. direct

selling expenses (i.e., credit, U.S.

warranty and bank charges), where

applicable.

Finally, we made adjustments to

normal value, where appropriate, for

differences in costs attributable to

differences in the physical

characteristics of the merchandise,

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Calculation of Constructed Value

We calculated constructed value for

Indo Evergreen, Zeta and Dieng/Surya

in accordance with section 773(e) of the

Act, which indicates that constructed

value shall be based on the sum of the

respondent’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S.

packing costs. We relied on the

submitted constructed value

information for Indo Evergreen and Zeta

with the exception of the adjustments to

COP noted above. For Dieng/Surya, we

relied on the submitted constructed

value information except for the

following adjustments:

For Surya we revised the production

quantities to be net of waste. This

reduction in production quantities

resulted in higher per unit COMs and

packing for Surya. In addition, we

disallowed Surya’s cost offset for the

sale of fresh mushrooms. See

Memorandum from Sheikh Hannan to

Neal Halper, dated February 28, 2001,

for Dieng/Surya. For Dieng, we treated

all reported grades as co-products with

the same mushroom cost. See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved

Mushroom from Indonesia, 63 FR

72268, 72281 (December 31, 1998).

We derived SG&A and profit in

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii)

of the Act and the Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d

Cong, 2d Sess (1994), (SAA) at 169–171.

See 19 CFR 351.405(b)(2) (clarifying that

under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act,

‘‘foreign country’’ means the country in

which the merchandise is produced), 62

FR 27296, 27412–13 (May 19, 1997).

The statute directs us to use an amount

which reflects SG&A and profit incurred

in connection with the production and

sale of a foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, by exporters or

producers that are subject to the review.

See section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Because Indo Evergreen and Zeta both

have a viable home market, and hence

actual company-specific SG&A and

profit data are available, we calculated

Dieng/Surya’s SG&A and profit as a

weighted average of the SG&A and

profit amounts experienced by Indo

Evergreen and Zeta. For further details

see Memorandum from Sheikh Hannan

to Neal Halper, dated February 28, 2001,

for Dieng/Surya.

Price-to-Constructed Value

Comparisons

For Dieng/Surya, we based normal

value on constructed value, in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the

Act. For price-to-constructed value

comparisons, we made adjustments to

constructed value for COS differences,

in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.410. We made

COS adjustments by deducting home

market direct selling expenses

(comprised of imputed credit) and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(comprised of imputed credit,

warranties and bank charges).

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the Act

based on the official exchange rates in

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 46 / Thursday, March 8, 2001 / Notices 13907

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margins for

the respective PORs are as follows:

Manufacture/exporter Period Margin (percent)

PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa ..................................................... 12/31/1998–01/31/2000 0.18 (de minimis).

PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp ........................................................................ 08/05/1998–01/31/2000 5.15

PT Zeta Agro Corporation .............................................................................................. 08/05/1998–01/31/2000 0.02 (de minimis).

We will disclose calculations used in

our analysis to parties to this proceeding

within five days of the publication date

of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication.

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a

hearing will be held 44 days after the

date of publication of this notice, or the

first work day thereafter.

Issues raised in the hearing will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case

briefs from interested parties and

rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues

raised in the respective case briefs, may

be submitted not later than 30 days and

37 days, respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Parties are

also encouraged to provide a summary

of the arguments not to exceed five

pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any written briefs, not

later than 120 days after the date of

publication of this notice.

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, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of 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 issues to be

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. The final

results of this review shall be the basis

for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the final results of this

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties. We will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries covered

by this review if any importer-specific

assessment rate calculated in the final

results of this review is above de

minimis (See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)). For

assessment purposes, we intend to

calculate importer-specific assessment

rates for the subject merchandise by

aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales examined

and dividing this amount by the total

entered value of the sales examined. In

order to estimate the entered value, we

will subtract applicable movement

expenses from the gross sales value.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

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 will be those established in

the final results of this review, except if

the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and

therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(C)(1), in

which case the cash deposit rate will be

zero; (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

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 11.26

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) 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 published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.221. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau, is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary of

Import Administration.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5622 Filed 3–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of

Foreign Government Subsidies on

Articles of Cheese Subject to an InQuota Rate of Duty

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Publication of quarterly update

to annual listing of foreign government

subsidies on articles of cheese subject to

an in-quota rate of duty.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, in consultation with the

Secretary of Agriculture, has prepared

its quarterly update to the annual list of

foreign government subsidies on articles

of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of

duty during the period October 1, 2000

through December 31, 2000. We are

publishing the current listing of those

subsidies that we have determined exist.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2001.