[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7714]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 31, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-301-602]

 

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Notice of Revocation of 
Order (in Part)

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review, and notice of revocation of the antidumping duty order in part.

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

SUMMARY: On December 14, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order or certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia. The review 
covers 186 producers and/or exporters of this merchandise to the United 
States and the period March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and 
the correction of certain clerical errors, we have made certain changes 
for the final results. The review indicates the existence of dumping 
margins for certain firms during the review period.
    We are also revoking the antidumping duty order for the following 
exporters/growers: Flores Colombianas Group (Agrosuba, Flores 
Colombianas, Jardines De Los Andes, Productos El Cartucho) and Flores 
Condor De Colombia Ltda.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. David Dirstine or Richard 
Rimlinger, Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 18, 1987, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (52 FR 8492) the antidumping duty 
order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia. The Floral Trade 
Council, the petitioner, and certain respondents requested in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22 that we conduct an administrative review 
of the period March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991. We published a 
notice of initiation of administrative review for this period on June 
18, 1991 (56 FR 27944). On December 14, 1993, we published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review (58 FR 65329).
    We determined in the preliminary results of review to revoke the 
antidumping duty order for the following exporters/growers: Flores 
Colombianas Group (Agrosuba, Flores Colombianas, Jardines De Los Andes, 
Productos El Cartucho), and Flores Condor De Colombia Ltda. These firms 
have submitted requests in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(b) to revoke 
the order with respect to their sales of flowers to the United States. 
Their requests where accompanied by certifications that they have sold 
flowers to the United States at not less than foreign market value 
(FMV) for at least a three-year period, including the subject review 
period, and will not do so in the future. Because we have determined 
that these firms have sold the subject merchandise at not less than 
foreign market value in this review, and have never sold the subject 
merchandise at less than FMV, including the required three-year period, 
we revoke the order with respect to these companies, in accordance with 
19 CFR 353.25(a).
    The Department has now completed the administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Tariff Act).

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain fresh cut 
flowers from Colombia (standard carnations, miniature (spray) 
carnations, standard chrysanthemums and pompon chrysanthemums). These 
products are currently classifiable under item numbers 0603.10.30.00, 
0603.10.70.10, 0603.10.70.20, and 0603.10.70.30 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.
    Although we initiated reviews on 189 named firms, this review 
actually covers only 186 firms. Two of the names listed in the 
initiation notice were the same company (Inversiones Targa Ltda. and 
Inversiones Targa S.A.). Also, we initiated a review for Agricola La 
Corsaria Ltda., but have terminated it because the firm's request for 
review was withdrawn and there was no other review request received for 
this firm. We also terminated the reviews initiated for Cultivos Del 
Caribe, Floramerica S.A., Flores Las Palmas Ltda., and Jardines De 
Colombia Ltda., because these firms were revoked from the antidumping 
order in earlier reviews.

Sampling

    Eighty-three firms covered by the initiation notice were requested 
only by the petitioner. Due to the large number of firms and 
transactions that were already under review, we used the following 
sampling methodology: First, the 83 firms were divided into three 
strata: Respondents with exports of fewer than 50,000 kilograms; 
respondents with exports of greater than 50,000 kilograms but fewer 
than 500,000 kilograms; and respondents with greater than 500,000 
kilograms. We then assigned ``points'' in a sample pool to each of the 
83 firms in proportion to the firm's share of total exports to the 
United States, with each point representing one-quarter of one 
percentage point of total exports. For example, a company than 
represented 5 percent of exports to the United States would receive 20 
points and go ``into the hat'' 20 times. A company that comprised one 
percent of total exports would receive four points and go ``into the 
hat'' four times. In this way, a company with a greater volume of 
exports had a much greater chance of being selected than the company 
with a smaller volume of exports. We then chose 10 percent of the 
points from each of the three strata to comprise the actual sample. The 
companies selected to be analyzed have received their own rates. The 
remaining 54 companies in the non-sampled pool were assigned the 
weighted average sample margin (any firm chosen for the sample more 
than once had its dumping rate counted as many times as the firm was 
selected).
    Initially, 31 firms were selected for the Department's sample. 
However, after selecting our sample group, we determined that two 
companies in the sample, Manjui Ltda., and Alstrodflores Ltda., had no 
shipments of the subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). 
We have eliminated these two firms from the sample pool. In addition, 
the Department determined during verification that Inversiones Targa 
Ltda., a company chosen for the sample pool, was a related entity of 
the Bochica Group, which self-requested a review. Therefore, we have 
collapsed the response of Inversiones Targa Ltda., as part of the 
Bochica Group, and eliminated this company from the sample pool. 
Twenty-eight firms were ultimately used in the Department's sample 
pool. Due to the elimination of Manjui Ltda., Alstrodflores Ltda., and 
Inversiones Targa Ltda., the sample no longer was self-weighting. 
Therefore, to estimate the average dumping margin of the population of 
54 remaining firms, we weight-averaged the sample means of the three 
strata. The weight assigned to each sample mean was that stratum's 
share of total exports.
    Flores Estrella Ltda., and Flores Mountgar Ltda., both chosen as 
part of the sample pool, submitted certifications to the Department 
that they are no longer in business and, therefore, could not respond 
to the Department's questionnaire. The Department determined that these 
companies could not respond, and therefore applied as second-tier Best 
Information Available (BIA) a rate of 7.56 percent to Flores Estrella, 
the highest calculated rate in this review, and a rate of 43.02 percent 
to Flores Mountgar, the highest rate ever received by that company in 
any prior review (see our response to Comment 40, below). The BIA 
margin for these two companies have been included in the contributing 
weight in the sample pool margin.
    During the course of this review, we learned that several 
respondents were sufficiently related for the Department to collapse 
these firms, or groups of firms, into one entity for purposes of 
calculating a dumping rate. The firms we considered one entity are: 
Agricola Las Cuadras and Flores De Hacaritama; Exportaciones Bochica/
Floral Ltda., Inversiones Targa, S.A., Flores Del Cauca, Agro Bosque, 
S.A., and Productos El Zorro (Agro Bosque, S.A. and Productos El Zorro 
were not in our initiation notice but have become a part of this 
administrative review due to the collapsing of the Bochica Group); 
Florex and Santa Helena; Queen's Flowers Ltda., Jardines De Chia Ltda., 
and Jardines De Fredonia Ltda.; and Rosa Sabanilla Ltda., Inversiones 
La Serena and Agricola La Capilla (Agricola La Capilla was not in our 
initiation notice but has become a part of this administrative review 
due to the collapsing of the Rosas Sabanilla Group). See Mamoranda to 
file dated March 11, 1994.

Best Information Available

    The Department conducted verification of responses submitted by 
Cultivos Miramonte, Exportaciones Bochica/Floral Ltda., Flores 
Colombianas, Flores Condor, Flores de Suba, Flores del Campo, Las 
Amalias/Pompones Ltda., Flores de Hunza, Flores la Sabana, Inversiones 
Targa, Ltda., and the Santana Group. At verification we detemined that 
there were several interrelationships between Las Amalias/Pompones 
Ltda. and another flower exporter, as well as interrelationships with 
other importers that were not disclosed to the Department in the 
response (see Las Amalias Varification Report (October 19, 1993)). 
Consequently, Las Amalias/Pompones Ltda., did not report the correct 
U.S. price (USP) for the overwhelming majority of its sales. As a 
result, we have used BIA to calculate the dumping margin for this firm. 
Also, as previously indicated in the Sampling section of this notice, 
we are applying second-tier BIA rates to sales made by Flores Estrella 
Ltda. and Flores Mountgar Ltda. These firms are no longer in business 
and failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire.

United States Price

    Pursuant to section 777A of the Tariff Act, we determined that it 
was appropriate to average U.S. prices on a monthly basis in order (1) 
to use actual price information that is often available only on a 
monthly basis, (2) to account for large sales volumes, and (3) to 
account for perishable product pricing practices (see Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Colombia, 56 FR 50554 (October 7, 1991)).
    In calculating USP, we used purchase price (PP) when sales were 
made to unrelated purchasers in the United States prior to the date of 
importation, or exporter's sales price (ESP) when sales were made to 
unrelated purchasers in the United States after the date of 
importation, both pursuant to section 772 of the Tariff Act.
    We calculated purchase price based on the packed price to the first 
unrelated purchaser in the United States. The terms of PP sales were 
either f.o.b. Bogota or c.i.f. Miami. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight, brokerage and 
handling, U.S. customs duties, and return credits.
    ESP, for sales made on consignment or through a related affiliate, 
was calculated based on the packed price to the first unrelated 
customer in the United States. We made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, air freight, box 
charges, credit expense, returned merchandise credits, royalties, U.S. 
duty, and either commissions paid to unrelated U.S. consignees or 
indirect U.S. selling expenses of related consignees.

Foreign Market Value

    Section 733(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act requires the Department of 
compare sales in the United States with viable home market sales of 
such or similar merchandise sold in the home market or a third country 
market in the ordinary course of trade. Although some companies 
reported home market sales of subject flowers, we found that these 
sales consisted either of mostly cull quality sales, or were sales to 
resellers for export to the United States. Furthermore, although some 
companies reported viable third country markets, consistent with the 
reasoning in the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review; Certain 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 55 FR 20491 (May 17, 1990), we have 
concluded that home market and third country sales are not an 
appropriate basis for foreign market value (FMV). See our response to 
Comment 4, below.
    Accordingly, in calculating FMV, we used constructed value as 
defined in section 773(e) of the Tariff Act for all companies. The 
constructed value represents the average per-flower cost for each type 
of flower, based on the costs incurred to produce that type of flower 
over the review period.
    The Department used the materials, fabrication, and general 
expenses reported by respondents. The per-unit average constructed 
value was based on the quantity of export quality flowers actually sold 
by the grower/exporter in all markets. The non-export quality flowers 
(culls) that are produced in conjunction with export quality flowers 
are considered by-products. Therefore, revenue from the sales of culls 
was used as an offset against the cost of producing the export quality 
flowers.
    For cases in which actual general expenses exceeded the statutory 
minimum of 10 percent of the cost of materials and fabrication, we used 
the actual general expenses to calculate constructed value. For cases 
in which actual general expenses were less than the statutory minimum 
of 10 percent of the cost of materials and fabrication, we used the 
statutory minimum of 10 percent. When imputed credit was included in 
constructed value, the actual interest expense was reduced to prevent 
double counting.
    When respondents indicated that the actual profit for merchandise 
of the same general class or kind could not be calculated or was less 
than eight percent of the sum of the cost of production and general 
expenses, the Department used the eight percent statutory minimum for 
profit. We added U.S. packing to constructed value. Adjustments to 
constructed value were made for credit and indirect selling expenses.
    Briefs and rebuttal briefs were submitted by the FTC and 
Asocolflores. A hearing was held on February 1, 1994.

General Issues Raised by the Floral Trade Council

    Comment 1: The Floral Trade Council (FTC) argues that floral 
bouquests should be covered by this order. According to the FTC, 
respondents are attempting to create a loophole in the order by selling 
covered flowers to a third party, who then packages them with other 
flowers for shipment and sales as ``bouquets'' in the United States. 
Respondents have considered such sales as home market sales, and not as 
sales for export to the United States. Other respondents made the 
bouquets themselves for sale to the United States, but did not report 
these sales.
    The FTC argues that flowers sold in bouquets are within the scope 
of the original petition and the antidumping duty order. Citing text 
from the original petition, the FTC claims that the order made no 
distinction between flowers sold by the stem or in bouquets and it 
notes that the only physical difference between flowers sold in 
bouquets and those sold individually is how they are packaged. The FTC 
denies that the bouquet making industry is a separate, downstream 
industry, and claims that while bouquet makers add value to the 
flowers, bouquets can be disaggregated from non-covered flowers to 
calculate the U.S. price applicable to the flowers covered by the 
order. The FTC also notes that in its injury determination, the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) did not distinguish between a 
flower sold by the stem, bunch, or bouquet. Finally, the FTC asks that 
the Department reject the questionnaire responses of those respondents 
that failed to report bouquet sales, and instead resort to an adverse 
rate of BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that bouquets are not within the scope of the 
original order. It notes that the original petition mentioned bouquets 
only as a use for fresh cut flowers, and claims that the ITC never 
addressed the issue in its injury determination. Furthermore, the FTC 
never requested a scope determination, nor did it analyze the relevant 
factors specified in the Department's scope regulation except in the 
most cursory fashion.
    Asocolflores argues that the FTC's request that the Department use 
a BIA rate for those companies that did not report bouquet sales should 
be denied. No company failed to provide information that was asked of 
it by the Department. Because the Department did not ask firms to 
report bouquet sales, the Department should not penalize firms for not 
reporting them. Asocolflores also argues that the Department has 
previously ruled that sales of certain mixed bouquets are not covered 
by the order. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 55 FR 20,499 
(May 17, 1990). Asocolflores asserts that bouquets were excluded 
because they are a high value-added product.
    Asocolflores argues that the ITC's arguments for determining that 
each flow type is a separate like product produced by a separate 
industry apply to mixed bouquets as well, and that, if anything, mixed 
bouquets are more ``unlike'' the individual like products than the 
individual like products with respect to each other. Asocoflores also 
argues that the FTC's examples to prove its case do not apply to this 
case, and that its analysis of the Diversified Products criteria--
physical differences, channels of trade, ultimate consumers, and end 
uses--is cursory and not backed by evidence. Asocolflores argues that 
bouquets are essentially dissimilar to fresh-cut flowers in each of the 
aforementioned criteria.
    Asocolflores maintains that bouquets are a separate downstream 
industry, and notes that U.S. bouquet makers were considered separate 
from U.S. flower producers by the ITC. Asocolflores further argues that 
separate kinds of flowers, such as roses and carnations, are considered 
separate products, that bouquets are even less alike and have less 
substitutability than flowers sold by the stem, and that bouquets do 
not compete against domestically produced carnations, pompons, or mums 
sold individually. Furthermore, companies in the Untied States that 
make bouquets are not the same ones producing fresh-cut flowers, 
further indicating that bouquets are a downstream industry. 
Asocolflores notes that there have been no investigations into whether 
bouquets have been dumped, and claims that domestic bouquet makers have 
no wish to see bouquets included within the scope of the order.
    Asocolflores concludes that mixed bouquets are a distinct article 
of commerce that do not fall under the scope of the order, and that 
this is borne out by the ITC's like product and industry analysis, the 
statutory distinction between industries producing raw and processed 
agricultural products, and by analysis under the Diversified Products 
criteria in the Department's scope regulation.
    Las Amalias (Lasa) argues that bouquets were not in the scope of 
either the original order or the original petition, and that the 
original order made no mention of bouquets whatsoever. Furthermore, the 
only time the Department addressed this issue, it determined that home 
market sales of subject flowers to bouquet makers were to be reported 
as home market sales. finally, because the Department did not request 
information on bouquets, it should not penalize companies that did not 
report bouquets by applying a BIA rate.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner that sales of 
subject flowers incorporated in mixed bouquets are covered by the 
order. We base this determination on an analysis of the petition, the 
final determination of sales at less than fair value, the antidumping 
duty order, prior administrative reviews, and the ITC injury 
determination. Because we find that the information on the record is 
dispositive, it was not necessary to analyze the Diversified Products 
criteria in 19 CFR 353.29(i)(2). Therefore, although petitioner and 
respondents commented on the Diversified Products criteria, we have not 
addressed those issues here.
    The petition covered certain fresh cut flowers whether imported by 
the stem, by the bunch, or by the bouquet, and quoted the relevant 
TSUSA description: ``Cut flowers, fresh; bouquets, wreaths, sprays, or 
similar articles * * *'' (FTC Antidumping Duty Petition, at 11 (May 21, 
1986).)
    In the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, the 
department stated:

    The products covered by this investigation are fresh cut 
miniature (spray) carnations, currently provided for in item 192.17 
of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUSA), and standard 
carnations, gerbera, alstroemeria, standard chrysanthemums, pompon 
chrysanthemums, and gypsophila currently provided for in item 192.21 
of the TSUSA. (52 FR 6843).

    The same language is contained in the antidumping duty order (52 FR 
8492) except that gerbera, alstroemeria, and gypsophila were excluded 
because of the ITC's negative injury determination.
    Although the ITC did not speak directly to the issue of whether 
mixed bouquets incorporating covered flowers constitute a separate like 
product, or whether there is a separate and distinct ``bouquet 
industry,'' a careful reading of the ITC's Determination of the 
Commission in Investigations Nos. 731-TA-327 Through 331 (Final), 
Publication 1956 (March 1987), shows that if the ITC had addressed 
these issues squarely, it would have decided both in the negative. We 
can reasonably infer from the report and the statistics relied upon in 
that report, taken as a whole, that the ITC did not consider any 
potential distinction between individual flower stems and those grouped 
together in bunches or bouquets significant enough even to mention, 
much less to conduct a separate analysis of them.
    For example, in Table 8 of that report (page A-39 and A-40), the 
ITC looked at U.S. producers' shipments of fresh cut flowers and noted 
that ``[q]uantities in bunches of [subject merchandise] are converted 
to stems [for purposes of comparison].'' On page A-41, the ITC states 
that in response to its questionnaires ``U.S. growers reported their 
domestic shipments of flowers grown in their establishments. Quantities 
reported were in stems or bunches,'' and on page A-43 the report 
states, regarding U.S. producers' exports, ``[d]ata are available 
describing exports of all fresh cut flowers and bouquets.''
    Although the ITC did not state that the above data included 
anything but subject merchandise, we conclude that the ITC considered 
all of the data relevant to its analysis. Where the ITC analyzed data 
involving basket categories including nonsubject merchandise, it made a 
specific reference to this. See e.g., footnote 4 of Table 1, where the 
ITC specifically pointed out that certain data relevant to its analysis 
included nonsubject merchandise. (Id. at A-24.)
    In another section, the ITC stated:

    The major retail outlets for fresh cut flowers are florists, 
garden centers and nurseries, and mass merchandisers such as 
supermarkets. A 1985 study showed florists with 63 percent of the 
value of floral sales, mass merchandisers with 18 percent, garden 
centers and nurseries with 12 percent, and other outlets with 7 
percent. Mass merchandisers have increased their share of the 
market, which was 6 percent in 1980, primarily at the expense of 
independent florists. Encouraged by increasing consumer demand, 
these outlets buy in bulk directly from growers, bypassing the 
wholesalers that service smaller florists. Imports have bolstered 
this trend by providing a year-round, low-cost source of supply. 
Supermarkets accounted for the largest portion of 1985 sales by mass 
merchandisers, with 8.6 percent of the market, followed by discount 
stores with 6.2 percent and department stores with 3.5 percent. In 
their questionnaire responses, importers verified that mass 
merchandisers have become increasingly important as purveyors of 
imported flowers. (Id. at A-19).

    This analysis should be viewed in conjunction with the following 
statement by Asocolflores:

    Most imported bouquets are sold through supermarkets directly to 
consumers in the form in which they are imported. Most individual 
fresh cut flowers are sold through wholesalers and retailers, and do 
not reach the consumer in the form in which they are imported. 
Instead, the retailer generally fashions them into arrangements, 
and, in some instances bouquets (but generally not mass market 
bouquets). (Asocolflores Rebuttal Brief at 23 (January 25, 1994).)

    While nothing in either of these passages suggests that 
supermarkets buy and sell bouquets exclusively, or that florists buy 
and sell individual stems exclusively, uncontroverted evidence on the 
record submitted by Asocolflores indicates that bouquets are generally 
sold through supermarkets. In addition, from the passages cited above, 
it is clear that the ITC analyzed domestic sales data that included 
individual stems, bunches, and bouquets, and that the ITC considered 
all mass merchandisers, including supermarkets, to be part of the 
distribution chain of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we deduce 
that the ITC did in fact consider flowers incorporated in bouquets in 
its injury analysis.
    Asocolflores argues that the ITC's determination that separate 
flowers constitute separate like products indicates that bouquets would 
be even more ``unlike'' the like products of which they are made. We 
find this argument strained and unsupported by any record evidence. 
Nothing in the ITC's report indicates that covered flowers sold in 
groups constitute a separate like product. On the contrary, as 
explained above, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the 
report is that the ITC was indifferent to whether flowers were sold 
individually or in groups.
    Both the FTC and Asocolfores argue that the Department, with 
respect to the Department's determinations in prior reviews, has 
already decided the bouquet issue in their respective favors. The first 
time we referred to bouquets was in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From 
Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 
FR 20499 (May 17, 1990), comment 49. The second time we dealt with the 
issue was in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 56 FR 50555 (October 7, 1991), comment 3. 
Although we did not affirmatively state in these prior determinations 
that covered flowers in mixed bouquets are covered by the order, our 
commentary and analysis clearly indicate that the Department has always 
considered covered flowers incorporated in mixed bouquets to be subject 
to the order.
    In the 1990 review, we treated Pompones' sales of subject flowers 
to an unrelated bouquet maker as home market sales. Nowhere in the 
position did we state that subject flowers incorporated into mixed 
bouquets are not covered by the order. We merely determined that 
because the unrelated reseller combined Pompones' flowers with 
purchases of other flowers from other producers, and because the value 
of Pompones' product in relation to the product imported into the 
United States was relatively small, there was no need to consider 
Pompones' to be the seller of the U.S. product. See Certain Fresh Cut 
Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 55 FR 20499 (May 17, 1990). We determined that these sales 
could be considered home market sales. This in no way implies that 
subject flowers (such as those Pompones sold to the reseller) 
eventually sold in the United States by the reseller, in no matter what 
form (stem, bunch, solid bouquets, or mixed bouquets), were not covered 
by the order; nor does it imply that the unrelated reseller had 
``substantially transformed'' Pompones' flowers into a product not 
covered by the order (bouquets). On the contrary, any covered flowers 
purchased by the unrelated reseller from Pompones or any other flower 
grower that were included in the bouquets sold in the United States 
were subject to the order and antidumping duties.
    Our ruling with respect to Pompones is consistent with a principle 
we have applied in other cases: The relative costs of items 
incorporated in a combination article are not dispositive as to whether 
an item is covered by the scope of an order. See, e.g., Funai Electric 
Co., Ltd., v. United States, 713 F. Supp. 420, 422 (1989) (``the 
technique of combining a putatively dumped article with a more costly 
related article could become a significant method of eva[sion]''), as 
cited in the FTC case brief at 5.
    In the 1991 review, the issue was how SunPetals (a related U.S. 
selling agent of the Floramerica Group) allocated costs among the 
components of its bouquets. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From 
Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Revocation in Part of the Antidumping Duty Order, 56 FR 50555 (October 
7, 1991). There was no question that the Floramerica Group reported 
covered flowers in such bouquets as U.S. sales or that the Department 
considered covered flowers in such bouquets to be U.S. sales. SunPetals 
derived a U.S. price (USP) for the subject flowers in the bouquets by 
subtracting the cost of the other components. The petitioner's 
complaint was that no profit was allocated to those other components, 
thereby making USP higher than if profit had been allocated. We chose 
not to recalculate USP for subject flowers in bouquets because the 
amount of such an additional deduction was so small that it would have 
had less than a de minimis impact on the firm's margin. Far from 
implying any kind of blanket exclusion for bouquets, this position 
demonstrates that subject flowers incorporated in mixed bouquets are 
covered by the order. If they were not, there would have been no need 
to calculate a USP for such flowers or to consider the issue of the 
potential effect of deducting additional profit from that USP.
    These prior determinations support our conclusion that bouquets are 
included in the scope of this order.
    Respondents make much of the packaging, composition, and value 
added of mixed bouquets. As we have discussed, and as the following 
analysis makes clear, these issues are irrelevant to this scope 
determination.
    At the outset, we note that no party to this proceeding has ever 
argued that bunches or bouquets made of several stems of a single 
(covered) flower type (hereafter, ``bunches'' and ``solid bouquets'') 
are not covered by the order. On the contrary, Asocolflores has 
admitted that such flowers incorporated in solid bouquets are in the 
scope of the order. See Memorandum to File dated March 14, 1994. At 
verification we found that bunches and solid bouquets were sold and 
duly reported by respondents as sales of covered merchandise. See, 
e.g., Bochica/Floral Public Verification Report at 5, (October 8, 
1993). As we saw at various verifications, typically bunches and solid 
bouquets contain several bound stems wrapped or stapled in cellophane 
sleeves and packed in a box with similar bunches or bouquets. See, 
e.g., Bochica/Floral Public Verification Report, at 8 and 13 (October 
8, 1993); Flores del Campo Public Verification Report, at 7 (October 
17, 1993); Las Amalias Public Verification Report, at 9 (October 19, 
1993); Flores de Suba Public Verification Report, at 10 (November 1, 
1993). Thus, the packaging and presentation of subject flowers in 
bunches and solid bouquets do not transform them into merchandise 
outside the scope of the order. See also Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value; Red Raspberries from Canada, 50 FR 19768, 
19771 (May 10, 1985) (differences in packaging do not transform a 
product into different classes or kinds of merchandise). In fact, we 
require respondents to disaggregate sales of bunches and solid bouquets 
and to quantify the number of individual stems contained in them. 
Likewise, Customs disaggregates bouquets and collects duties on 
individual flower stems.
    Mixed-flower bouquets are in most cases prepared very similarly to 
solid bouquets and bunches. A group of flower stems is bound and 
wrapped, usually in cellophane sleeves, and packed in a box. See, e.g., 
Issues Hearing Transcript in the Matter of Certain Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Colombia, at 11-12, (February 1, 1994). Flores Condor's bouquets 
are made up of approximately six stems of carnations and one stem each 
of minicarnations, statice, gypsophila and alstroemeria. See Condor 
Public Verification Report, at 3 (December 14, 1993). Flores de la 
Sabana's bouquets were ``partial bouquets'' that consisted of only two 
pompon chrysanthemums and two carnations. See Flores de la Sabana 
Public Verification Report, at 10 (October 25, 1993). Flores de Suba's 
bouquets were comprised of carnations, pompons, gypsophila, and 
statice. See Flores de Suba Public Verification Report, at 3 (November 
1, 1993).
    The mixed bouquets produced by Flores de la Sabana consist of all 
covered flowers. This points up the absurdity of the position that 
mixed bouquets per se are not covered. According to this position, if 
two different covered flowers come in separately, they would be subject 
to the order, but if the two covered flowers are combined into a 
bouquet, they would not be subject to the order. As petitioner points 
out, when products subject to an antidumping duty order are combined or 
aggregated with other products, they are still covered by the order. 
See, e.g., Final Result of Administrative Review; Drycleaning Machinery 
from West Germany, 50 FR 32154, 21156 (1985); and Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Cellular Mobile 
Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan, 50 FR 24554, 24555 (1985).
    As noted above, the ITC separated each flower type into different 
like products. However, the Department has always treated the subject 
merchandise (covered flowers) as one class or kind of merchandise. We 
cannot logically conclude that the inclusion of different flower types 
belonging to the same class or kind of merchandise hinges on whether 
those flowers are imported individually or grouped together in bunches 
or bouquets.
    Finally, we agree with respondents that the use of BIA would be 
inappropriate for companies that did not provide sales data for mixed 
bouquets. Although some companies reported bouquet sales, we did not 
request these data in this review. Nevertheless, we are proceeding with 
our final results because we have determined that an analysis of 
bouquet data would have a negligible impact on respondents' margins in 
this review. Based on a weight-averaged analysis of the companies that 
we verified, we find that both flowers sold to converters and those 
sold directly to the United States in mixed bouquets constituted only 
1.66 percent of those respondents' total sales to the United States 
during the period of review. See Memorandum to the file dated March 7, 
1994. Because the firms picked for verification represent a cross-
section of all respondents, we conclude that these data would not vary 
significantly for respondents that were not verified. We also note that 
because Customs requires deposits on all subject flowers regardless of 
how they are imported (including those imported in mixed bouquets), our 
calculated duty rates will be also assessed on flowers incorporated in 
mixed bouquets. However, in subsequent reviews, beginning with the 
1991/1992 review, we will request and analyze respondents' sales data 
for subject flowers incorporated into mixed bouquets.
    Comment 2: The FTC asks that the interest rate used to calculate 
credit costs not be adjusted for currency devaluation, as was done in 
the preliminary results. The FTC contends that where there was actual 
borrowing to finance sales, the actual rates paid should be used, and 
that when a U.S. importer incurred the borrowing costs and no actual 
loans can be identified, a U.S. rate should be imputed. The FTC claims 
that prepayment of interest is frequent in Colombia, and where it is 
required, interest would have been paid in pre-devaluation pesos. The 
FTC asks that, because this practice is frequent, peso-denominated 
loans should be assumed to have had the interest paid in advance except 
where the record shows otherwise. The FTC argues that unless specific 
loans are related to financing accounts receivables, the Department 
should not relate gains from devaluation to those loans. Finally, the 
FTC argues that because the Department applies the exchange rate on a 
monthly basis, there is no need to ``devaluate a peso interest rate''.
    The FTC asks that the Department use either the related importers' 
U.S. interest rate on actual borrowing or, when no borrowing is 
claimed, the average rate paid by other similar importers. The FTC also 
asks that the Department use the Colombian producers' interest rate on 
short-term borrowing, unadjusted for devaluation.
    Asocolflores responds that the argument concerning prepaid interest 
is not relevant here because the respondents reported their actual 
effective peso borrowing rates, which were verified by the Department. 
Asocolflores also maintains that credit expenses are not actual but 
imputed expenses and thus impossible to relate to specific loans, and 
that these expenses are a calculation of opportunity costs. Finally, 
Asocolflores notes that imputed credit is calculated in terms of 
dollars, and thus does not obviate the need to account for devaluation. 
Asocolflores contends that it is entirely possible to have very low or 
even negative imputed credit expenses when the dollar appreciates 
against the peso at a rate approaching or exceeding the peso-
denominated borrowing rate.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondents. The respondents 
were instructed to report information concerning their actual short-
term borrowing rate, whether that rate was in dollars or pesos. The 
credit expense is an imputed expense, not an actual expense, and is 
calculated and reported in U.S. dollars. Credit expense is the 
hypothetical cost to the flower producer for not receiving immediate 
payment for the U.S. sale. In reporting the interest rate, if a flower 
grower, or its related U.S. importer, had U.S. dollar borrowings, this 
rate was reported and used in the credit calculation. However, where 
there were no U.S. dollar borrowings, we used the actual peso borrowing 
rate, adjusted to reflect the fact that the credit expense was incurred 
in dollars and not pesos. We adjusted the peso by the rate of 
depreciation of the peso to the dollar during the POR in order to 
reflect the cost of borrowing in pesos to finance sales made in 
dollars. However, where no short-term borrowings were reported, we used 
the U.S. prime rate during the POR.
    An unadjusted peso borrowing rate does not have any correlation to 
the cost of borrowing dollars or financing dollar expenses. It would 
make no commercial sense for a flower producer in Colombia to borrow at 
a 20 to 35 percent interest rate in Colombia when it could borrow in 
the United States at a much lower dollar interest rate, unless the 
dollar appreciates enough against the peso to offset the difference in 
interest rates. Thus, if the Department is to presume that a flower 
producer would borrow in pesos to finance U.S. dollar sales, we must 
use the real cost of borrowing, which includes the devaluation of the 
peso with respect to the dollar. It is the Department's practice to 
make monetary corrections in such circumstances. See, e.g., Final 
Results of Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From 
Mexico, 58 FR 25806 (April 28, 1993).
    Comment 3: The FTC asks the Department to use the transaction 
values in the U.S. Custom Service's informational bulletins for 
consignment entries when calculating the assessment rate, the estimated 
duty deposit rate, and any percentage duty rate applied to consignment 
sales. The FTC argues that if the calculated U.S. price is used instead 
of the relevant values in the Customs bulletins, then there is a danger 
that antidumping duties will be undercollected.
    Asocolflores responds that the above argument is irrelevant because 
the Department has previously assessed duties as a specific amount per 
stem or bunch as opposed to on an ad valorem basis and, from the 
preliminary results, appears to be set to do this in this review. While 
the Department calculates the cash deposit rate on an ad valorem basis, 
Asocolflores notes this rate is only an estimate used for deposit 
purposes and not actual duty assessments. Asocolflores argues that 
Customs obtains its pricing data by surveying importers and that the 
margins are as likely to be overstated as understated. Finally, 
Asocolflores contends that the FTC is asking the Department to 
unlawfully delegate its responsibility to Customs.
    Department's Position: With respect to assessment rates for 
consignment sales, we will divide the total margin amount by either the 
U.S. Customs bulletin values or customs entered values derived from 
these bulletins to calculate an ad valorem antidumping assessment rate, 
or by total quantity and assess antidumping duties on a per unit basis. 
This would be consistent with the Department's practice of calculating 
assessment rates on the basis on which they are collected--entered 
value. See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts From France et al., 57 FR 28362 (June 24, 1992). 
This methodology eliminates the potential undercollection of 
antidumping duties in instances when USP is greater than entered value 
and assessment rates are based on USP. However, we will continue to 
calculate estimated cash deposit rates on the basis of USP.
    Comment 4: Petitioner argues that, while the questionnaire requires 
reporting of home market sales if the home market ``export quality'' 
sales of a particular flower type by volume are greater than five 
percent of sales of the same flower type to the United States and five 
percent of sales of the same flower type to other countries, the 
Department directed respondents to base margin calculations on CV for 
all flower types sold regardless of whether the home market is viable 
for any flower. Therefore, according to the FTC, respondents have 
concluded that it is no longer necessary to report home market or third 
country sales. Furthermore, petitioner claims that although the 
Department did not consider the European market comparable to the U.S. 
market in prior reviews, it must reconsider its position in this review 
prior to rejecting home market or third-country prices as an adequate 
base for foreign market value. Finally, the petitioner states that the 
Department should require a complete reporting of all home market sales 
and third country sales of export quality merchandise in future 
administrative reviews.
    Respondents counter that no flower company had a viable home market 
and that the Department rejected the use of third-country sales as the 
basis of foreign market value not because of viability, but rather 
because of the extraordinary circumstances of the industry.
    Department's Position: We determine that none of the companies had 
viable home markets. Questionnaire responses on the record indicate 
that with the exception of one company, Las Amalias, nearly all home 
market sales are sales of culls. In the case of Las Amalias, the 
company sells export quality flowers to converters with the knowledge 
that these converters make mixed bouquets for export to the United 
States, which means that they are essentially U.S. sales. See our 
response to Comment 1, above. In those infrequent cases where export 
quality flowers are sold domestically, the buyers, essentially private 
street vendors, go to the farms on the chance that there are flowers 
available due to excess production. The availability of such flowers is 
unpredictable, and neither the growers nor the buyers can plan on these 
sales. The growers incur no sales expenses on these unpredictable sales 
and generally the buyers end up purchasing culls. See Cultivos 
Miramonte Verification Report (September 15, 1993), and Inversiones 
Targas Verification Report (September 20, 1993). Therefore, we continue 
to consider such sales to be not in the ordinary course of trade.
    Furthermore, consistent with the final results of the second and 
third reviews, we determine that there continue to be fundamental 
differences between the U.S. and European markets (the major third 
country market for most companies) that support using CV as FMV instead 
of third country sales. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 55 FR 
20491 (May 17, 1990), and Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 56 FR 
50554 (October 7, 1991). In addition, the CIT upheld the use of CV in 
these circumstances. See Floral Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. 
Supp. 1492, 1497 (1991), appeal docketed, No. 94-1019 (Fed. Cir.).
    There is no evidence on the record that the differences between the 
United States market and the European market have been eliminated. As 
described in detail in earlier reviews, the United States market 
continues to be one of peaks during traditional gift-giving holidays 
and valleys during the off-season while the European market is 
relatively stable throughout the year. Because of this price and volume 
volatility of the United States market as compared with the stability 
of the European market and other factors detailed in our determinations 
from previous reviews, we continue to consider third-country prices as 
inappropriate bases for FMV. However, if the FTC provides additional 
information supporting its contention that third country markets are an 
appropriate basis for FMV, we will consider such information in future 
reviews.
    Comment 5: The FTC notes that in the preliminary results, the 
Department did not indicate whether it increased gross U.S. sales price 
by the amount of ``other revenue'' received on those sales. The FTC 
contends that in response to being asked to ``[p]rovide any rebates of 
antidumping or other duties in a separate column'' (ITA Quest. at G.I.-
3), certain respondents have increased the U.S. price by the amount of 
antidumping duties included in the U.S. invoice price. The FTC argues 
that it is to the respondents' advantage to do so, as it allegedly 
reduces or eliminates the overall size of any dumping margin. The FTC 
asks that this be remedied by adjusting the U.S. price downward in all 
cases where the record evidence establishes that U.S. importers are not 
paying antidumping duties but are being reimbursed by the Colombian 
growers or exporters, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.26(a).
    Asocolflores responds that importers have added a surcharge to the 
basic price of the flowers in order to account for the possibility of 
an additional antidumping duty liability. This surcharge is paid for by 
the first unrelated U.S. purchaser, and has nothing to do with actual 
duty assessments. Its only immediate effect has been to raise U.S. 
prices, and is in no way a ``reimbursement'' of assessed duties by the 
producer.
    Department's Position: If an importer is being reimbursed by the 
seller for the payment of antidumping duties, it would be appropriate 
for the Customs Service to assess these duties again. However, because 
the item in question is a charge, not a rebate, no doubling of 
antidumping duties is mandated. Therefore, we have not adjusted USP 
downward as the FTC suggests, since the additional amount is part of 
the price the U.S. importer pays. If, upon liquidation, the appropriate 
certificate regarding reimbursement is not provided, Customs will make 
the necessary change in its assessment of the duties.
    Comment 6: The FTC contends that allowing respondents to report 
amortized preproduction costs subjects the margin calculation to 
manipulation. The FTC claims that ``[i]f a respondent expensed 
preproduction costs in the third review but amortized preproduction 
costs during the fourth review, preproduction costs would be 
understated.'' The FTC requests that the Department determine whether 
these costs have been properly reported over time.
    Asocolflores responds that the respondents which amortized their 
preproduction costs did so in order to more accurately match costs with 
sales, and notes that the Department approved this methodology in the 
third review. Asocolflores claims that, if anything, expensing 
preproduction costs in one review and amortizing them in the next will 
result in double-counting of costs, which would be to the petitioner's 
advantage. Asocolflores also notes that the Department regularly does 
confirm that costs have been properly reported through verification.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores. It is generally 
accepted accounting procedure in Colombia to allow firms to amortize or 
expense preproduction expenses. Therefore, we have accepted either 
methodology if that methodology was used by the firm in its normal cost 
accounting procedures. Furthermore, even if a firm chose to expense 
preproduction costs in an earlier period, this would not detract from 
the reasonableness of amortizing such costs in the current review. 
Finally, there are no respondents that expensed preproduction costs in 
the previous review who have now amortized such costs in this review.
    Comment 7: The FTC claims that certain respondents have reported 
export documentation fees, export register charges, export license 
fees, and phytosanitary fees as indirect selling expenses. The FTC 
argues that because these are shipment specific expenses attributable 
to specific sales, they should be included in freight charges, not 
indirect selling expenses.
    Asocolflores responds that, in Colombia, export registers must be 
purchased and thus are charged at the purchase of the register, not 
when exports are made. This charge is made even if the register is not 
used, but if it is, a number of shipments can be reported on a single 
register. Therefore, the export register fee cannot be tied to specific 
exports and are thus indirect selling expenses.
    Department's Position: Based on the evidence in the responses and 
our verification reports, we conclude that the expenses in question--
export documentation fees, export register charges, export license 
fees, and phytosanitary fees--are selling expenses because they are 
incurred prior to movement of the merchandise and are not incident to 
transportation of the flowers. See Flores del Campo Verification Report 
at 8 (October 15, 1993) and Flores de Suba Verification Report at 2 
(November 1, 1993). In addition, these expenses cannot be linked to 
particular sales. Therefore, we have treated these expenses as indirect 
selling expenses.
    Comment 8: The FTC asks that the Department disregard respondents' 
claims that all of their short-term interest income is related to 
flower production. The FTC argues that the Department should determine 
whether a respondent has other businesses, and whether they have linked 
their interest income to accounts receivable on flower sales. The FTC 
claims that after such determinations have been made, only that 
interest income which is demonstrated to be related to flower 
production should be allowed as a direct offset to interest expenses in 
constructed value.
    Asocolflores responds by claiming that all respondents demonstrated 
that interest income was related to flower production. Asocolflores 
notes that the example cited by the FTC, Santana Flowers Group, is 
engaged exclusively in flower production, and as a result, all interest 
income must be related to such production.
    Department's Position: Only short-term interest income related to 
flower operations is allowed as an offset to interest expenses. We 
allow this adjustment to arrive at an effective short-term interest 
expense. For firms where we have determined that reported short-term 
interest income is not related to production of subject merchandise, we 
have disallowed that income. This is standard Department practice that 
has been followed in many cases. See e.g., Gray Portland Cement and 
Clinker from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 58 FR 25805, Comment 2 (April 28, 1993).
    Comment 9: The FTC asks that the Department impute the highest 
reported royalty payment as the BIA for those respondents that either 
failed to report royalties or claim to have paid no royalties without 
explanation. The FTC argues that it is to the respondents' advantage 
not to report royalties on U.S. sales, and for that reason the burden 
should be on them to furnish evidence that they paid no royalties, or 
else a specific amount of royalties.
    Asocolflores responds that companies did report royalty expenses, 
and in case where no royalties were paid, there is nothing to report. 
Asocolflores claims that the Department verified via sampling that the 
respondents answered truthfully, and contends that there is no further 
burden of proof on respondents with respect to this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores. There is no 
record evidence that Colombian flower producers were obliged to make 
royalty payments, and our verifications indicated no discrepancies in 
the reporting of royalties. In the absence of evidence suggesting that 
certain Colombian flower growers made unreported royalty payments, we 
cannot assume that such payments were made.
    Comment 10: The FTC contends that when calculating U.S. selling 
expenses incurred in Colombia, some respondents allocated movement, 
selling, and production costs on the basis of the number of boxes 
shipped rather than sold (the FTC cites Cultivos Miramonte, Flores 
Colombianas Group, and Soagro Group as particular examples). The FTC 
notes that this approach was rejected by the Department during the 
original investigation. The FTC argues that the Department should 
recalculate the expenses, or use the highest reported freight and 
packing expenses as BIA.
    The FTC also contends that because respondents seem to rely on 
boxes rather than reusable plastic containers to transport their 
flowers, and that because those boxes are necessary for the flowers to 
be transported, constructed value should include boxes in packing 
expenses as part of cultivation materials.
    Asocoflores responds that the practice of allocating costs by boxes 
shipped is done to determine how to allocate the expense among 
customers. Whether the allocation is done by boxes shipped or boxes 
sold, the total freight costs will be the same. Because inland freight 
is incurred whether a box is sold or not, it is reasonable to allocate 
by boxes shipped.
    Asocolflores claims that the case the FTC cites to support its 
argument regarding whether boxes and packing costs be included in 
cultivation expenses (see Washington Red Raspberry Commission v. United 
States, 657 F. Supp. 537, 542 (1987)) does not apply to fresh cut 
flowers. In the above-cited case, the product would be destroyed if not 
packaged in special containers. Flowers do not need to be shipped in 
the boxes, and because the boxes are nonessential, they should be 
considered a packing expense, not a production cost.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner that movement, 
selling, and production costs should be allocated on the basis of boxes 
sold rather than boxes shipped. Because companies recoup their costs 
through sales, costs should be allocated on the basis of sales. See 
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 20491 (May 17, 1990). However, we 
checked the questionnaire responses of the companies cited by the FTC 
and found that they did in fact allocate the costs in question over 
sales. The FTC may be confusing the companies' quantification of these 
costs with the allocation of them. The companies properly quantified 
their costs on the basis of boxes shipped, because expenses are 
incurred on boxes shipped. However, in determining the per unit cost, 
the expenses must be allocated over boxes sold, for the reasons stated 
above.
    We disagree with petitioner's view that the cost of boxes used to 
ship flowers should be reported as cultivation materials. Boxes are 
used for transportation purposes only and are not part of the product. 
Therefore, they are correctly reported as packing costs.

Revocation for Condor and Colombianas

    Comment 11: The FTC argues that the Department should not revoke 
the antidumping duty order with respect to imports from Flores Condor 
and Flores Colombianas. The FTC contends first that the two companies 
have not met the Department's regulatory requirement that a producer be 
found to have sold covered merchandise at not less than FMV for a 
period of at least three years. The FTC notes that data is not yet 
available for the period February 28, 1991, the end of the current POR, 
to December 14, 1993, the date of the preliminary determination to 
revoke, and argues that without these data, it cannot be determined 
whether or not these producers have met this requirement. The FTC 
further argues that the Department's findings in the second 
administrative review (1988-1989) should be disregarded until the FTC's 
legal challenge of the review has been resolved. The FTC requests that 
the Department not rely on a certification to immediate reinstatement 
in the order if dumping is found after revocation.
    Asocolflores responds that both Condor and Colombianas have met the 
tests for revocation, and that the FTC's claims that the data is 
``stale'' are not relevant. Because the revocation is made effective at 
the end of the third consecutive POR, it is not necessary to examine 
sales after that review. Though the Department used to require such 
data, that was before a change in the test for eligibility for 
revocation. Further, Asocolflores notes that it has not been Department 
policy to await the results of appeals to grant revocation. Finally, 
Asocolflores characterizes the FTC's argument that the Department 
should not rely on certification as described above as a complaint with 
the Department's regulations, and not a concern regarding the 
eligibility of Condor or Colombianas for revocation.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores that both firms 
have met the requirements for revocation. Under 19 CFR 353.25(a)(1)(i), 
the Department is required to find sales at not less than foreign 
market value for a period of at least three consecutive years. Our 
determination in this review that both companies had zero margins, 
combined with similar findings in the two prior reviews, satisfies this 
requirement. Although the regulations in effect prior to 1989 required 
a review for the period between the end of the consecutive-year base 
period and the tentative determination to revoke (19 CFR 353.54(f) 
(1988)), the current regulations have eliminated this requirement. In 
addition, it is not the Department's policy to delay granting 
revocation because of pending court appeals.
    Comment 12: The FTC asserts that Flores Condor cannot establish 
that it sold covered flowers at fair value during the 1990-1991 period, 
because it failed to report all sales of flowers contained in bouquets 
during this period. The FTC suggests that Condor may be attempting to 
avoid the duty by re-packaging its flowers as bouquets. The FTC also 
claims that Condor has not demonstrated that it will not engage in 
dumping once the order is revoked.
    Asocolflores responds that because the Department did not require 
Condor to report bouquet sales, Condor's response cannot be considered 
deficient. Furthermore, by pricing and production practices, Condor has 
demonstrated that it will not engage in dumping subject flowers in the 
future.
    Department's Position: Although Flores Condor did not report United 
States sales of flowers sold in bouquets (because we did not 
specifically request this information), the value of such flowers 
incorporated into bouquets sold in the United States amounts to an 
insignificant portion of Condor's total United States sales. See 
Memorandum to the file dated March 7, 1994. Also, Condor has never made 
sales at less than fair value in the past. Considering these facts, and 
the lack of evidence supporting the allegation that Flores Condor may 
be attempting to avoid the duty by re-packaging, we have determined 
that Flores Condor sold subject flowers at not less than foreign market 
value during the current POR. Furthermore, we have determined that 
Flores Condor has demonstrated through its past pricing practices that 
it is not likely to sell subject flowers at less than fair value in the 
future. Therefore, we are revoking the antidumping duty order with 
respect to Flores Condor.
    Comment 13: The FTC argues that the Department should recalculate 
Condor's preproduction costs. It claims that because Condor allocated 
its costs to all export quality flowers produced and not to flowers 
sold, the unit cost per flower sold is understated to the extent that 
all flowers were not sold. The FTC is also concerned that because 
Condor's cost accounting system expenses preproduction costs according 
to a projected, rather than actual figure, Condor's reported costs may 
be understated. The FTC also notes that Condor may not have properly 
allocated preproduction costs to the POR.
    Asocolflores responds that although Condor allocates costs on the 
basis of flowers produced for internal reasons, it calculated 
constructed value by dividing total costs by flowers sold, and is 
therefore consistent with the Department's requirements.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. We verified Flores 
Condor's preproduction cost calculation and found that the company 
allocated total preproduction costs by flowers sold, in accordance with 
the Department's requirements as stated in the questionnaire. Because 
firms cover their costs only through sales, we require allocations 
according to sales rather than production.
    Comment 14: The FTC is concerned that Colombianas will serve as a 
conduit for flowers grown by other producers to evade the antidumping 
order. The FTC claims that this is already happening, and that 
Colombianas sells more flowers to the United States that it purchased 
from other producers than flowers that it produced itself. The FTC also 
claims that Colombianas has reported its flower purchases as direct 
material costs, and notes that those purchase prices may be below the 
suppliers' costs of production.
    Asocolflores responds that the FTC is wrong in believing that 
Colombianas is acting or will act as a conduit for flowers from other 
firms. Asocolflores maintains that sometimes producers have a shortage 
of certain flowers and must purchase a small amount of them from other 
producers. Colombianas did have to buy carnations in 1990, but sales of 
carnations to the United States constituted an insignificant percentage 
of total sales to the United States. Respondent further states that it 
did not export more purchased flowers than produced flowers. Finally, 
such purchases were correctly reported as direct material costs. There 
is no evidence that Colombianas purchased flowers at below the 
supplier's cost of production, and in fact, the average value of 
purchased pompons is greater than Colombianas' own per unit cultivation 
costs.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the FTC's claim that 
Colombianas is evading the antidumping order. First, although 
Colombianas does purchase a majority of its export quality carnations 
and minicarnations, the group is primarily a producer and seller of 
pompons and mums. See Colombianas' Questionnaire Response, at 25 (March 
24, 1992). Colombianas' sales of carnations and minicarnations 
constitute an insignificant percentage of its total sales to the United 
States of within-scope flowers. See Flores Colombianas' Verification 
Report, at 3 (October 25, 1993). Also, Colombianas has consistently 
stated that its flower suppliers have no foreknowledge that these 
purchased flowers are destined for any specific export market. Second, 
the Department has not received any evidence that Colombianas has 
purchased flowers at below suppliers' cost of production. In fact, 
after surveying the average prices of flowers purchased from selected 
Colombianas suppliers, we found these average prices to be above the 
suppliers' respective constructed values for those flowers. Finally, if 
we receive information that Colombianas is serving as a conduit for 
other Colombian flower growers, we will take appropriate action, which 
could include reinstatement in the order and referral to the U.S. 
Customs fraud division.
    Comment 15: The FTC argues that the data Colombianas supplied in 
response to the questionnaire is inaccurate and incomplete and that, 
without further clarification, Colombianas cannot be shown to have 
ceased selling covered flowers in the United States at less than FMV. 
As in the case of Flores Condor, the FTC asserts that Colombianas has 
provided inadequate data because it failed to include sales of flowers 
packaged in bouquets. The FTC asserts that Colombianas has included 
sales of pompon cuttings in its reporting of sales of non-export 
quality flowers or culls, and argues that cuttings should be reported 
separately from culls. The FTC also notes that Colombianas' materials 
are expensed based on a weighted-average per unit cost, and asks that 
the Department not accept ``average'' costs unless they are adjusted by 
a variance to actual costs.
    The FTC claims that Colombianas has departed from its usual 
accounting methodology in calculating its cost of production by 
amortizing preproduction expenses over the ``productive portions of the 
plants' lifecycles.'' The FTC asks that, if Colombianas amortized its 
preproduction in the third administrative review, the Department not 
permit Colombianas to expense all preproduction costs without 
accounting for the amortized costs from the previous review. The FTC 
further ask that the Department carefully review the questionnaire 
responses to determine if all costs have been captured, and also 
confirm that they have been properly allocated to sales of the subject 
merchandise.
    Asocolflores responds that it has argued earlier that bouquet sales 
do not need to be reported, and that no reporting them should not be 
the basis for applying a BIA rate. Also, Colombianas has demonstrated 
through its business practices that it will not engage in dumping in 
the future.
    Asocolflores asserts that Colombianas has reported using cull 
revenue to offset cultivation costs in the four previous years and that 
no objection was raised at the time. Because all expenses associated 
with producing cuttings are included in its constructed value, 
Asocolflores maintains that it is appropriate to offset the cost of 
production by revenue generated from sales of those cuttings.
    Asocolflores states that because materials are expensed on the 
basis of the actual weighted-average per unit costs, it is unnecessary 
to adjust average unit cost by their variance to actual costs, because 
there is no variance.
    Asocolflores claims that the methodology used by Colombianas to 
calculate preproduction expenses is the same as that used in prior 
reviews, and that the Department has verified this methodology. 
Asocolflores also states that only one of the group's members amortizes 
preproduction costs while the rest of the group's members expense their 
preproduction costs.
    Finally, Asocolflores states that the FTC's concerns that all costs 
have not been properly allocated are mistaken and that the FTC has 
misread the questionnaire responses. The Department has conducted 
verification of Colombianas' cost and found that all were correctly 
reported.
    Department's Position: See our response to Comment 1, above, with 
regard to our handling of the issue of bouquets in this review.
    We agree with Colombianas' reporting of cuttings revenue as part of 
cull revenue. Expenses related to cuttings production are included in 
Colombianas' constructed value; hence, an offset for revenue generated 
from the sales of these cuttings if appropriate.
    We agree with Colombianas' expensing material costs based on a 
weighted-average actual per unit cost because these costs are 
calculated on an actual cost basis, which requires no variance 
adjustment. See Flores Colombianas' Verification Report at 7 (October 
25, 1993).
    We agree with respondent with regard to Colombianas' amortization 
of its preproduction costs for this review. The FTC misinterprets the 
statement from our verification report concerning the amortization of 
preproduction costs to mean all Colombianas group members. This 
statement refers to Flores Colombianas Ltda. and Agrosuba Ltda. 
Jardines de los Andes, another member of the Colombianas group, does 
amortize its preproduction costs. The Department's verification report 
states that ``no preproduction costs are separately reported in the 
group's response because all costs are expensed in the month that the 
activity takes place.'' See Flores Colombianas' Verification Report, at 
7 (October 25, 1993). We verified the group's preproduction expense 
methodology and found no discrepancies. Furthermore, Flores Colombianas 
Group's preproduction cost reporting methodology in this administrative 
review was clearly consistent with that reported in previous 
administrative reviews.
    Finally, during our verification, we carefully reviewed 
Colombianas' source documents and accounting records, and we are 
satisfied that Colombianas captured all costs.

Other Company-Specific Comments

    Comment 16: The FTC argues that Flores De Suba (Suba) has 
understated its U.S. sales in response to the questionnaire. First, the 
FTC claims that Suba has not reported flowers sold to the United States 
as components of bouquets. Second, the FTC asserts that Suba has sold 
its flowers to other Colombian exporters that have lower cash deposit 
rates. The FTC claims that Suba lists these flowers as third country 
sales, though it knows that the likely ultimate destination of these 
flowers would be the United States. Asocolflores responds that, as 
argued above, the criticism regarding bouquets is invalid. Asocolflores 
claims that there is no evidence that Suba knew or had reason to know 
that flowers sold to other producers would be sold in the United 
States. Furthermore, Suba does not have a ``practice'' of selling to 
other exporters, but only does so occasionally.
    Department's Position: See our response to Comment 1 with regard to 
our handling of the issue of bouquets in this review.
    Second, Suba has always acknowledged that it has had sales of some 
export quality flowers to other Colombian flower exporters. However, 
Suba knows only that these flowers are destined for export, not 
specifically for the United States market. See Flores de Suba 
Questionnaire Response, at 1 (May 1, 1992). There is no evidence that 
the company has understated its U.S. sales in response to the 
Department's questionnaire.
    Comment 17: The FTC asserts that Suba has included proceeds from 
the sales of excess wood and plastic as cull revenue. The FTC requests 
that the Department confirm that Suba has offset costs attributable to 
packing, and not total costs, in its constructed value calculation.
    Asocolflores responds that the wood and plastic in question was for 
use in constructing greenhouses, and that this has been certified by 
the Department. Because greenhouses are used in the production of 
flowers, Asocolflores maintains that the Department correctly 
considered wood and plastic expenses to be an offset to total costs.
    Department's Position: Suba stated in its response to the 
Department's questionnaires that its sales of excess wood and plastic 
were included in its cull revenue. Because we verified that these 
materials are used in general construction of greenhouses, we agree 
with respondent that these costs should be taken as an offset to total 
costs.
    Comment 18: The FTC notes that Santana Flowers Group (Santana) 
sells some of its flowers under several separate brand names. The FTC 
requests that the Department inform Customs of all brand names under 
which Santana flowers are sold to ensure that antidumping duties are 
properly collected.
    Asocolflores responds that brand names have nothing to do with the 
way in which flowers enter the United States. Customs' forms ask for 
the producer of merchandise, and Santana has reported itself as the 
producer.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores that the use of 
brand names does not affect the assessment of antidumping duties on 
covered entries. Customs relies on information relating to the identity 
of the producer or exporter of this merchandise when liquidating 
entries according to our instructions.
    Comment 19: The FTC claims that Santana has failed to support its 
calculation of the number of days between shipment and payment for the 
purpose of computing credit expenses on export sales prices. The FTC 
asks that the Department use the highest reported number of days 
between shipment and payment as BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that Santana reported the appropriate number 
of days, but when asked by the Department at verification, Santana 
could not find the worksheet that it used to determine that number. 
Santana decided not to recalculate its credit expenses. Asocolflores 
maintains that Santana should not be penalized for this because the 
decision to report the higher number of days is to its disadvantage as 
it increases the amount of credit expenses applicable to U.S. sales.
    Department's Position: We verified that the number of days between 
shipment and payment was less than that reported by Santana for its 
U.S. sales. The scenario described by Asocolflores is accurate. Santana 
chose not to recalculate its credit expenses, which would have 
increased USP and therefore been more favorable to Santana. As a 
result, we used Santana's overstated credit expense, which lowers USP 
and raises Santana's dumping margin, as originally reported in its 
response. See Santana Flowers Group Verification Report at 10 (October 
13, 1993).
    Comment 20: The FTC asserts that some of the data supplied by 
Santana is inaccurate. First, the FTC claims that Santana did not 
report flowers sold in bouquets. Second, because Santana has not 
reported royalty costs by flower type, the Department should use the 
highest reported royalty expense for each flower type as BIA. Finally, 
the FTC argues that the costs for destruction, spraying, and 
incineration, which were not reported by Santana, constitute a regular 
selling expense for the producer. The FTC requests that the Department 
confirm that Santana has reduced its U.S. price accordingly.
    Asocolflores argues that the idea that different flower types will 
have different levels of royalties is mere speculation and not backed 
by evidence. Asocolflores notes that the royalties reported by Santana 
were verified by the Department, and the costs for destruction, 
spraying, and incineration were in fact reported in Table 1, Column AA 
of Santana's response.
    Department's Position: See our response to Comment 1, above, with 
regard to our handling of the issue of bouquets in this review. Also, 
Santana did in fact properly report costs for destruction, spraying, 
and incineration in its response. We determined that Santana's royalty 
reporting methodology is acceptable.
    Comment 21: The FTC asserts that some of the data supplied by 
Cultivos Miramonte (Miramonte) is inaccurate. First, the FTC claims 
that Miramonte may have routed subject flowers through a related firm, 
and asks that the Department confirm whether or not such routing took 
place. Second, Miramonte claimed bank fees for the conversion of U.S. 
dollars to Colombian pesos as indirect selling expenses. The FTC argues 
that because such payments directly correspond to a sale of subject 
merchandise, thee fees should be treated as direct selling expenses. 
Third, Miramonte has treated its Colombia Flower Council fees as 
``other expenses,'' and the FTC asks that the Department ensure that 
these fees are treated as U.S. selling expenses. Finally, the FTC is 
concerned that Miramonte may have included the sales of cuttings in the 
cull revenue as an offset to constructed value, and asks that the 
Department ensure that this is not the case.
    Asocolflores responds that Miramonte sold only cuttings to a 
related firm, and that because Miramonte has a zero cash deposit rate, 
there was no need to avoid payment of deposit rates. Second, because 
Miramonte receives payment in lump sums, conversion fees cannot be tied 
to any specific sales, and thus are correctly reported as indirect 
selling expenses. Third, Miramonte's Colombia Flower Council fees were 
reported in Table 1, Column AA. Last, Asocolflores characterizes the 
FTC's assertion that Miramonte may have included the sale of cuttings 
in the cull revenue as speculation, and maintains that the Department 
has verified otherwise.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores regarding the 
FTC's allegation that Miramonte sold covered flowers to the United 
States through a related firm. We found no evidence at verification to 
contradict Miramonte's claim that only cuttings were sold to its 
related firm. Second, because bank fees are paid in lump sums and do 
not necessarily correspond to the sales made in a particular month, we 
have treated them as indirect selling expenses. Third, although these 
fees are reported under ``other expenses,'' this item is combined with 
U.S. selling expenses and both items are subtracted from U.S. price and 
subject to offset. Finally, we disagree with petitioner that Miramonte 
included in its cull revenue the sale of cuttings. We found no evidence 
at verification to support petition's claim.
    Comment 22: The FTC requests that the Department reject Flores 
Cajibio's (Cajibio) allocation methodology for general and 
administrative expenses. The FTC claims that Cajibio reported these as 
indirect sales expenses by surveying the time that administrative 
personnel spent on export sales for one week. The FTC notes that the 
month in which the week occurred could affect the amount of time 
attributable to sales activities. The FTC also wonders how Cajibio 
could assume that its administrative staff spent only 20 percent of its 
time on activities related to U.S. export sales when the U.S. market 
accounts for a large percentage of Cajibio's sales for all flowers. The 
FTC argues that the Department should assume that all general and 
administrative expenses were U.S. selling expenses as BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that because there are a number of 
administrative and management personnel who are not involved with 
selling, it is not unreasonable for a firm to have only 20 percent of 
administrative personnel engaged in this activity.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC that Cajibio failed to 
established that its allocation methodology for quantifying indirect 
selling expenses was representative of how these costs related to sales 
activities during the entire POR. Because Cajibio indicates in its 
response that all administrative personnel spent time in communications 
for U.S. sales, we have classified all general and administrative 
expenses incurred in Colombia and attributable to U.S. sales as 
indirect selling expenses.
    Comment 23: The FTC asserts that Cajibio deducted air freight 
expenses from its ``production expense,'' claiming their air freight is 
paid for by the importer in the United States. The FTC claims that it 
is not clear that air freight has been included in Cajibio's response, 
whether paid for by Cajibio or the importer. The FTC argues that the 
Department should use the highest reported air freight expenses as BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that these data were reported in Table 1, 
Column AF, and that it was correctly excluded from production expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores that Cajibio 
accounted for air freight expenses under ``other charges'' of Table 1 
of its May 7, 1992, response.
    Comment 24: The FTC asserts that Cajibio claims to post all 
expenses to the record as they occur, and not to amortize them over the 
useful life of the product, yet in its supplemental response Cajibio 
indicated that it depreciated all its assets based on the useful life 
of each product taking into account the purchase value of the asset. 
The FTC argues that as it is unclear how Cajibio accounted for its 
assets with a useful life of over one year, the Department should use 
the highest reported depreciation costs as BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that amortization is performed on expenses 
and that depreciation is performed on assets; therefore, there is no 
contradiction here.
    Department's Position: We have determined that there is no 
inconsistency in Cajibio's decision not to amortize certain expenses 
and to depreciate its assets, because amortization of expenses applies 
to intangible assets and deferred charges, and depreciation applies to 
fixed assets. Therefore, Cajibio's treatment of amortization expenses 
has nothing to do with depreciation.
    Comment 25: The FTC claims that Cajibio has not explained how it 
distinguished costs directly attributable to open field grown yucca 
plants from those attributable to plants grown in greenhouses. 
Furthermore, according to the FTC, Cajibio claims not to keep records 
of the amounts of fertilizer used, and conducted a two-week study to 
make a determination of fertilizer consumption. The FTC asserts that 
this study did not account for the stage of production or the growing 
seasons, and argues that because the study is not representative, the 
Department should instead use relative area under cultivation to 
reallocate those costs.
    Asocolflores responds that most producers are able to identify 
those materials used only in the production of one type of product, 
that Cajibio used its best efforts to determine the allocation of 
fertilizer, and that, therefore, the FTC's allegations are unfounded.
    Department's Position: The evidence on record from Cajibio's 
responses indicates that the firm, for the most part, kept product-
specific cost records. However, with respect to certain costs such as 
fertilizer expenses, Cajibio had to use its best estimates based on 
work surveys to quantify the expense in questions. Based on our 
analysis of the factual information in Cajibio's responses, including 
the amount of land devoted to open field yucca production and the 
number of flower beds devoted to production of various types of 
flowers, we find Cajibio's estimates to be reasonable.
    Comment 26: The FTC argues that the Department should recalculate 
Cajibio's packing and box expenses for the POR, as Cajibio's figures 
may be inaccurate. First, Cajibio reported that it had a ``negative 
cost of packing'' in some months because it used the boxes before the 
POR but accounted for the expense during the POR. The FTC argues that 
if this is so, the cost of packing should be zero or equal to the 
amount of expenses incurred during the POR. Second, Cajibio should not 
be allowed to reduce box expenses by the amount of box charges 
collected by its related consignee because the consignee also sells 
Ecuadorian flowers. Third, Cajibio should not be allowed to make an 
expense adjustment for boxes that were later sold to Ecuador, and thus 
``do not belong to Flores Cajibio.'' Finally, the FTC claims that 
Cajibio calculates its packing labor costs by multiplying an average 
labor cost by two to account for the fact that they have two packers, 
and argues that Cajibio should simply use the actual salaries of the 
two workers.
    Asocolflores responds that the apparent anomaly of negative packing 
expenses in certain months is a result of the use of actual monthly 
expenses. Second, Cajibio did not reduce box expenses, it included the 
charges in Table 1, Column I of its May 7, 1992, response. Third, boxes 
shipped to Ecuador are not a part of the cost incurred on shipping 
flowers to the United States, so the costs of these boxes were not 
included. Finally, Asocolflores argues that the FTC's assumption that 
Cajibio employed the same two workers in packing for the entire review 
period is not the case, and because all labor costs not included in 
packing are included in direct production costs, there is no 
distortion.
    Department's Position: Cajibio did report negative packing totals 
for certain months in Table 4C of its May 7, 1992, response. However, 
in this same response, Cajibio recalculated packing expenses by using a 
weighted-average per unit packing charge based on total packing charges 
during the POR and these final figures were used for comparison 
purposes.
    We find that Cajibio properly accounted for its box charges and was 
correct in reporting only expenses that were incurred on U.S. sales. 
Finally, we agree with Asocolflores that using an average per worker 
salary to calculate packing labor is reasonable because the workers 
assigned to packing are rotated.
    Comment 27: The FTC asks that the Department reallocate reported 
air freight costs for Flores Aguila Ltd. (Aguila) because Aguila 
allocated the costs according to the number of boxes shipped, not the 
number of boxes sold, as should have been done.
    Asocolflores responds that as long as total air freight costs are 
reported, how they are allocated does not matter. See Comment 10, 
above.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the FTC. As Flores Aguila 
explained in its response, air freight charges are incurred on flowers 
shipped. Therefore, Flores Aguila allocated its air freight charges 
among flower types based on relative quantities shipped in order to 
derive the total air freight expenses for each flower type. See Flores 
Aguila section C Questionnaire Response, at 6 (April 23, 1992), and 
Flores Aguila Supplemental section C Response (October 3, 1993). Flores 
Aguila then reported these air freight costs in its U.S. sales 
worksheets. These were divided by flowers sold and deducted from U.S. 
price. Thus, we accepted Flores Aguila's methodology.
    Comment 28: The FTC argues that the Department should not accept 
some of the data Aguila supplied in response to the questionnaire. 
First, the cost data allocated on the basis of cultivation area should 
be rejected, given several inconsistencies, and re-allocated according 
to relative cultivation area. Second, because Aguila appears to have 
failed to report certain costs, the highest reported cost of materials 
should be used as BIA. Finally, because Aguila failed to specify the 
type of packing materials used for sales and failed to explain its 
allocation methodology for these costs, the Department should either 
require that Aguila supply this information or resort to the highest 
reported packing costs as BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that it is impossible for a firm to account 
separately for the thousands of purchases of materials made during the 
POR and that some summarization is necessary. Asocolflores also claims 
that documentation of this information is usually provided at 
verification and not in a questionnaire response.
    Department's Position: The FTC's allegations are speculative in 
nature and do not establish inconsistency in Aguila's response. For 
example, the FTC notes a discrepancy between the ratio of area in 
hectares under cultivation for each flower type and the ratio of the 
number of flower beds planted for each flower type. These ratios are 
only slightly different. More significantly, there is no reason that 
the area under cultivation for each flower type as measured in hectares 
should be exactly the same as the area when measured according to the 
number of flower beds because the size of the flower beds may vary by 
flower type.
    With respect to Aguila's cost of materials, the information 
submitted conforms to the format of the questionnaire that the 
Department issued to all respondents in this review. Although Aguila 
does summarize all costs found within each category of expense found in 
the questionnaire format, there is no evidence on the record that 
Aguila failed to report all costs.
    Finally, with respect to packing materials, our questionnaire did 
not require a detailed listing of all packing materials used by Aguila. 
Instead, Aguila was instructed to report the total of all costs of 
packing or otherwise preparing the merchandise for shipment to the 
United States customer. Because Aguila followed the format of the 
questionnaire with respect to packing costs, we find no reason to 
reject the firm's packing costs.
    Comment 29: The FTC asserts that Daflor has failed to describe its 
material or labor costs, failed to provide worksheets illustrating the 
allocation methodologies used to report these costs, and failed to 
support the indirect selling expenses reported. The FTC argues that 
absent further clarification, the Department should use the highest 
reported costs and indirect selling expenses as BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that not all companies distinguish among all 
costs incurred, and that total itemization is not required by the 
Department. Furthermore, Asocolflores maintains that most Colombian 
producers have relatively low indirect selling expenses because sales 
are usually handled for them by their importer.
    Department's Position: Daflor's initial questionnaire response was 
deficient in that it did not identify the components of its material 
and labor costs, did not explain its allocation methodology, and did 
not identify the components of its indirect selling expenses. However, 
in the supplemental response of October 4, 1993, Daflor corrected these 
deficiencies. Therefore, we have not resorted to BIA with respect to 
Daflor.
    In addition, because Daflor has related and unrelated importers in 
the United States that take care of all of its sales-related 
activities, it is reasonable for Daflor's indirect selling expenses 
incurred in Colombia to be relatively small.
    Comment 30: The FTC argues that the Department should reject some 
of the data supplied by the Soagro Group (Soagro). First, Soagro 
purchases cuttings from another related company, but has not 
established that the prices used are at arm's-length or greater than 
arm's-length pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677b(e)(2) & (3). In this case, the 
Department should use the highest reported material costs as BIA. 
Second, Soagro imports some mother plants from Holland, yet does not 
report any royalty expenses. The FTC argues that the Department should 
impute an amount for royalty expenses as BIA. Finally, Soagro's crop 
adjustment methodology may be resulting in the improper elimination of 
preproduction costs during the POR. The FTC asks that the Department 
expense all preproduction costs in the POR or use BIA.
    Asocolflores responds that the first two points are speculation on 
the part of the FTC, and that there is no evidence to support them. As 
for preproduction costs, Asocolflores explains that the value of the 
increase in cultivated area is in effect amortized and distributed to 
the next year, but it is also included in the material, labor, and 
indirect costs reported in the next year's responses. While this is 
different from the methodology of other companies, Asocolflores 
observes that it was used by Soagro in the previous review.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores. Because Soagro 
purchases cuttings from only a related party, it was not possible to 
conduct an arm's-length test based on purchases made by Soagro. 
However, we compared the price of Soagro's related party purchases of 
cuttings to other flower companies' unrelated purchases of cuttings. We 
found that Soagro's prices were on average equal or higher. Although 
Soagro purchases mother plants from Holland and does not report any 
royalty expenses, there is no evidence that Soagro incurs royalty 
expenses. As for the preproduction costs, the value of the increase in 
cultivated area is in effect amortized and distributed to the POR and 
to following years. We have accepted this methodology in previous 
reviews as reasonable.
    Comment 31: The FTC claims that Flores Del Campo Ltda. (Campo) has 
included in its total U.S. shipments value the quantity and value of 
flowers that are ultimately shipped to Canada through Miami. The FTC 
argues that this may distort the margin percentage and that Canadian 
sales should be excluded.
    Asocolflores responds that because Customs cannot distinguish 
between those flowers coming into Miami that are destined for Canada 
and those destined for the United States, it assesses a cash deposit 
and, ultimately, a duty on them all. Asocolflores argues that the 
Department should take this into account by including the volume and 
value of Canadian sales when calculating Campo's per unit assessment 
rate. If this is not done, Asocolflores asserts that the correct amount 
of duties will not be collected.
    Department's Position: With respect to consignment sales made by 
Flores del Campo to its U.S. agent, certain flowers were entered into 
the United States but ultimately sold in Canada. Because there were no 
U.S. sales prices for these sales, we calculated Flores del Campo's 
antidumping margin based only on entries of subject flowers from Flores 
del Campo that were entered and sold in the United States. Flores del 
Campo's deposit rate is based only on U.S. sales because at the time of 
entry, we do not know which, if any, flowers will be sold in Canada. 
That is, the cash deposit rate is equal to the total dumping duties due 
on sales in the United States divided by only the sales value of 
flowers sold in the United States. However, because Flores del Campo's 
antidumping duty assessment rate will be applied to entries of flowers 
sold in both Canada and the United States, and because we know which 
flowers were sold in Canada during the POR, we have factored into the 
assessment rate Canadian sales totals to prevent over-collection of 
antidumping duties. That is, the assessment rate is equal to the total 
dumping duties due on U.S. sales divided by all flowers entered into 
the United States, including those ultimately sold in Canada.
    Comment 32: The FTC claims that Campo reported a total cull revenue 
for the POR that was different from that reported in its financial 
statements for 1990 and 1991. The FTC argues that the Department should 
reject Campo's offset to cost of production for cull revenue because of 
this discrepancy.
    Asocolflores states that the Department has verified that the 
amount reported by Campo is correct.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores. Although we find 
that there is a difference between the amount of cull revenue reported 
in the financial statements and the amount reported in Campo's 
response, during verification we inspected Campo's cull revenue records 
and found Campo's response to be accurate. See Flores Del Campo 
Verification Report (October 17, 1993).
    Comment 33: The FTC argues that the Department should not accept 
data from The Bochica Group unless it has been specifically verified. 
According to the FTC, the Department found Bochica/Floral's response to 
have many errors, and while those may have been corrected, the FTC 
questions the accuracy of the rest of the data.
    Bochica/Floral responds that the FTC has exaggerated the extent of 
the errors found in the response. Many of the errors cited were not 
errors at all, and those that were errors were very small, often 
amounting to a variance of less than one percent. Bochica/Floral notes 
that the Department's verification report makes it clear that 
Department officials regarded the response to be accurate.
    Department's Position: We agree with Bochica/Floral. We thoroughly 
verified the company's response and found its data to be accurate. See 
Bochica/Floral Verification Report (October 8, 1993). The discrepancies 
found at verification were corrected on site and in subsequent 
submissions made by Bochica/Floral. Because the verification process 
involves spot-checking data submitted in the response, and because we 
found the verified data to be essentially accurate, we have no reason 
to question the accuracy of the rest of the data submitted.
    Comment 34: The FTC asserts that Bochica/Floral did not report all 
applicable royalty expenses. The FTC asks that the Department reject 
Bochica/Floral's figures and instead use the highest reported royalty 
expenses as BIA.
    Department's Position: We disagree. At verification, we determined 
that Bochica/Floral accurately reported royalty expenses.
    Comment 35: The FTC contends that Bochica/Floral may not have 
included expenses related to its Meristem Laboratory in its response. 
It is also unclear to the FTC whether all expenses for cuttings have 
been properly included. In addition, Bochica/Floral claimed to have no 
R&D expenses during the POR, but that any research ``skills'' involved 
were included in ``production.'' The FTC requests that the Department 
confirm that the above expenses were included in Bochica's response.
    Bochica/Floral responds that Meristem did not produce cuttings in 
commercial quantities until after the POR, and that expenses associated 
with start-up operations during the POR were included in the direct 
material costs.
    Department's Position: We verified that the Meristem laboratory did 
not produce cuttings in commercial quantities until after the POR and 
that the expenses associated with the start-up operations are included 
in the direct material costs. See Memorandum to File dated March 14, 
1994.
    Comment 36: The FTC requests that the Department reject Floralex's 
claim that interest income should be used to reduce interest expenses, 
as Floralex has not demonstrated that the short-term interest income is 
related to flower production.
    Floralex responds that it is in the business of producing flowers, 
and that it is thus reasonable to assume that short-term interest 
income is related to flower production. Moreover, the Department never 
asked for more details about this income, nor did it bother to verify 
the response, and it would be unfair to penalize Floralex for failing 
to provide information it was not asked to supply.
    Department's Position: Floralex reported its interest income as 
revenue directly related to flower production. There is no evidence on 
the record, nor has petitioner provided any, contradicting Floralex's 
reported interest income. Therefore, we have accepted Floralex's claim 
as stated in its response and have adjusted the company's short-term 
interest expenses by its interest income.
    Comment 37: Petitioner requests that the Department resolve a 
number of inconsistencies in Flores Marandua's (Marandua) questionnaire 
response. Petitioner maintains that Marandua has not reported freight 
expense from the farm to the airport in its U.S. sales listing, nor has 
it reported direct or indirect selling expenses, though it sells 
through a related importer. Petitioner further states that Marandua has 
not reported all of its cultivation costs, and that it has not itemized 
material, labor or indirect costs. Petitioner also argues that Marandua 
has not explained why it accounts for a negative ``last period 
amortization cost'' for every month during the review period.
    Department's Position: Marandua did not incur an inland freight 
(from farm to airport) expense because an independent cargo agent 
commissioned by the air carrier picked up Marandua's flowers and 
delivered them to the airport at no cost to Marandua. Marandua's U.S. 
selling expenses are incurred by its related importer in Miami, and 
these expenses are captured by the commission expense reported by 
Marandua. Marandua's reported material, labor, and indirect costs were 
acceptable. Finally, what the petitioner refers to as ``negative'' 
amortization cost are not negative costs at all, but additions to cost 
that generally pertain to overhead.
    Comment 38: The FTC asserts that the Department's analysis 
memorandum was incorrect in that it indicated that an adjusted peso 
borrowing rate was used to calculate credit expenses for Flores Arco 
Iris (Arco Iris). The FTC further states that the actual rate used by 
the Department was the U.S. prime rate during the POR.
    Department's Position: We agree. Because Arco Iris had no dollar or 
peso short-term borrowings during the POR, we used the U.S. prime rate 
to calculate credit expenses for the firm.
    Comment 39: The FTC claims that the Department should reject Flores 
Tomaine's and Becerra Castellanos's questionnaire responses as 
materially deficient because neither company clearly stated in their 
responses that they sold subject flowers to the Flores Colombians Group 
during the POR. The FTC claims that the Department should therefore 
apply a BIA rate to these companies.
    Department's Position: We disagree. Becerra Castellanos reported 
these sales as third country sales, which is not inconsistent with 
Colombianas' claim that its suppliers do not have foreknowledge as to 
which export market their flowers are sent. Although Flores Tomaine did 
not report these sales in its response, we do not explicitly require a 
detailed reporting to third country sales. Because Tomaine did not have 
foreknowledge that this merchandise was destined for sale to the United 
States, and foreign market value is based upon CV, not home market or 
third country sales, the issue of Tomaine's reporting these sales is 
moot. In addition, the average prices of Flores Tomaine's and Becerra 
Castellanos's carnation sales to Colombianas were above their CV. For 
these reasons we conclude that BIA is not appropriate in this case.

General Issues Raised by Respondents

    Comment 40: Asocolflores protests the Department's assignment of 
72.35 percent as the BIA rates for Flores Mountgar (Mountgar) and 
Flores Estrella (Estrella). Asocolflores claims that neither firm was 
able to respond to the Department's questionnaire for the POR (1990-
1991). Mountgar had been liquidated, and Estrella was on the verge of 
liquidation at the time they received the Department's questionnaire. 
Though not actually out of business, Estrella had no means to reply to 
the request as it had no money to obtain legal or accounting help.
    Asocolflores argues that, in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's decision on Allied-Signal Aerospace v. United 
States, 996 F.2d. 1185, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the Department should 
not have used first-tier BIA, i.e., the highest rate found for any 
company in any prior review or the current review, because neither 
company was able to respond. Instead, the Department should have used 
the second tier, i.e., either the highest rate ever applied to the 
company in question or the highest rate applied to any company in the 
current review.
    Asocolflores argues that using the 72.35 BIA rate for the two 
companies as components of the sample group rate unfairly penalizes the 
other companies in the sample. Asocolflores asserts that the 72.35 rate 
was not even calculated by the Department, but was a figure cited by 
the petitioner in the original petition, which included flower types 
not included in the antidumping duty order. Because neither company was 
able to respond, and because the 72.35 rate was not a figure calculated 
by the Department, Asocolflores maintains that it should be discarded. 
Asocolflores suggests assigning the BIA rate for both companies on the 
basis of the highest rate calculated for a company in the current 
review, in this case, 7.56 percent.
    The FTC responds that the BIA rate used in the preliminary results 
was appropriate. The FTC asserts that 19 U.S.C. 1677e(b) specifically 
provides for use of the petition's rate as BIA, that the Department's 
standard practice is to apply a first-tier BIA rate to companies that 
do not respond to the questionnaire, and that this choice of BIA is 
consistent with its choice in the original investigation. The FTC 
claims that Mountgar and Estrella have failed to support their claims 
of bankruptcy, and that, in fact, both companies still exist according 
to readily available information from public sources. The FTC contents 
that both companies apparently continued to ship subject flowers during 
the 1992-1993 POR. Not only did both companies not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, the FTC observes that neither reported 
experiencing difficulty until after the Department chose them for 
inclusion in the sample group. Finally, the FTC rejects the argument 
that Allied Signal v. United States applies in this case, as that case 
was one of a respondent that was unable to provide a complete response 
but offered what information it could provide, whereas neither Mountgar 
nor Estrella made an attempt to provide any information.
    The FTC suggests that the Department use the 72.35 percent BIA 
rate, or, if it must apply the second tier, that it use the highest 
rate ever applicable to the firm from either the investigation or any 
prior review, and not the highest rate applicable to another firm in 
the current review. Because Mountgar was assigned a rate of 43.02 
percent during the third review, the FTC asserts that this rate should 
be applied if the Department relies on second-tier BIA.
    Department's Position: We have reconsidered the use of first-tier 
BIA for Mountgar and Estrella. In the preliminary results of review, we 
solicited comments on our proposal concerning the appropriate BIA rate 
to apply to companies that exported during the POR but that later went 
out of business. Based on our proposal and the comments received, we 
sent questionnaires to Asocolflores and the Colombian Government Trade 
Bureau regarding the status of the two companies. Asocolflores 
responded with a sworn declaration from its international manager.
    With respect to Mountgar, Asocolflores stated that it was unable to 
contact any former representatives of the company, that the company did 
not resume operations after October 1990, that the company's plants 
(i.e., flowers) were left unattended or destroyed, that the land owned 
by the company and the greenhouses on that land were sold to a group of 
investors unrelated to the former owners of Mountgar, and that the new 
owners planted only roses (not subject to the order) in the greenhouses 
formerly owned by Mountgar. Asocolflores also confirmed with the 
Colombian Customs Agency, DIAN, that Mountgar registered no exports of 
flowers to the United States or any other country after 1990. See 
``Declaration of Maria Isabel Patino'' submitted in a letter to the 
Department from counsel for respondent dated March 3, 1994.
    The information provided by Asocolflores comports with that 
provided by the assistant general manager of Mountgar at an earlier 
stage of this administrative review. See ``Declaration of Luis Hernan 
Garcia'' submitted in a letter to the Department from counsel to 
respondent dated May 7, 1992.
    With respect to Estrella, Asocolflores stated that the company went 
out of business when its two former owners left Colombia and that 
Estrella is currently undergoing certain legal procedures that must be 
followed before a company can be officially dissolved. On January 12, 
1994, Asocolflores received a communication from the Colombian Circuit 
Court confirming that Estrella's assets are being liquidated in a 
proceeding called a ``concordato.'' Asocolflores explained that, under 
Colombian law, a concordato is an official liquidation procedure, not a 
reorganization proceeding, by which a court oversees the final 
distribution of the company's assets to its creditors. Because 
Asocolflores is a creditor of Estrella, it received the official court 
notice. Asocolflores stated that, as a creditor of Estrella, it 
understands that there are virtually no assets to distribute and that 
Estrella rented, rather than owned, the land on which it produced 
flowers. Finally, Asocolflores reported that Colombian Customs (DIAN) 
confirmed that Estrella did not register any exports of flowers to the 
United States or any other market after 1992. See ``Declaration of 
Maria Isabel Patino,'' supra.
    This information comports with that provided by Estrella's then 
general manager at an earlier stage of this administrative review. See 
``Declaration of Augusto Hoyos'' submitted in a letter to the 
Department from counsel to respondent dated May 8, 1992. This 
declaration indicated that Estrella would file a request for a 
``concordato'' on May 12, 1992. In addition, the declaration stated 
that Estrella's related importer, Airport Floral, was liquidated in 
July 1991, that since 1990 Airport Floral stopped making payments to 
Estrella, or made only partial payments, and that as a result Estrella 
had to lay off 40 employees.
    In choosing an appropriate BIA for these two companies, we focused 
on the following factors and how they applied to the two companies at 
the time they received our questionnaires (in this case, March 4, 
1992): The extent to which the companies continued to operate, 
including current production and export levels, the number of persons 
employed by the firms, the disposition of the companies' assets, the 
relationship of the companies to other exporters continuing in 
business, the current legal status of the bankruptcy, liquidation, or 
reorganization proceedings, and the potential for reorganization 
(including the likelihood that the companies would resume production 
and exports).
    The record evidence indicates that Flores Mountgar ceased 
production and exports well before the end of the POR, that it was in 
liquidation proceedings at the time it received the Department's 
questionnaire, and that the company's assets were sold to unrelated 
parties who subsequently produced merchandise not subject to the order. 
According to Asocolflores, under Colombian law, all of the resources of 
a company involved in liquidation proceedings must be devoted to 
satisfying creditors. Based on this information, we conclude that 
Flores Mountgar was incapable of responding to our questionnaire.
    With respect to Flores Estrella, the record evidence indicates 
that, at the time the company received the Department's questionnaire, 
it had not yet entered into liquidation proceedings and that the 
company's assets had not yet been disposed of. In fact, a Colombian 
court did not issue official notification that the company's assets 
were to be liquidated until January 4, 1994--almost two years after the 
company received our questionnaire. Although the former general manager 
of Estrella reported in May 1992 that the company had to lay off 40 
employees, he gave no indication of the number of employees remaining, 
nor did he suggest that the remaining employees were monopolized by the 
bankruptcy proceedings. Moreover, Colombian Customs indicated that 
Flores Estrella ceased exporting only as of the end of 1992, which is 
nine months after the company received our questionnaire. This 
indicates that Estrella most likely continued to operate at the time it 
received the Department's questionnaire.
    Based on this information, we cannot conclude that Flores Estrella 
was incapable of responding to the questionnaire. Nonetheless, we 
recognize that the company was subject to financial and personnel 
constraints at that time. In his declaration, then general manager of 
Estrella indicated that Estrella requested its U.S. importer to provide 
to the Department information regarding U.S. sales. He stated, ``If the 
Department so agrees, Flores Estrella would be willing to make an 
effort and provide partial information regarding constructed value and 
U.S. price according to what I stated above.'' See ``Declaration of 
Augusto Hoyos,'' supra.
    The record demonstrates that the Department did not respond to this 
suggestion and that the Department did not request any additional 
information regarding Flores Estrella until February 24, 1994. By this 
time, liquidation proceedings with respect to Estrella had already 
begun. Thus, in February 1994, Flores Estrella was in circumstances 
similar to those of Flores Mountgar in March 1992, and similar to those 
of the respondent that was the subject of the CAFC's decision in Allied 
Signal, supra, (cooperative BIA to be applied to respondent incapable 
of providing complete response but which provided partial response 
consistent with company's limited resources).
    For these reasons, we have determined that second-tier BIA rates 
are appropriate for both companies. Second-tier BIA rates comprise the 
higher of (1) the highest rate ever applied to that company from any 
prior review or the LTFV investigation, or (2) the highest rate 
calculated for any other company in the current review. See Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts From France, et 
al., 57 FR 28379 (June 24, 1992). We are applying a BIA rate of 7.56 
percent, the highest rate calculated in this review, to Flores 
Estrella. We are applying a BIA rate of 43.02 percent to Flores 
Mountgar, the highest rate that this company has received in any 
previous review. In reaching this decision, we were not persuaded by 
petitioner's claim that Estrella and Mountgar continue to exist as 
flower producers and exporters. Petitioner's information is 
circumstantial and conjectural. With respect to petitioner's claim that 
these firms ``apparently'' continued to ship flowers subject to the 
order during the 1992-93 POR, the absence of a statement of no 
shipments during either POR is not evidence of sales during the POR.
    Comment 41: Asocolflores argues that because Mountgar and Estrella 
are no longer in business, they should be excluded from the sample 
group for purposes of calculating the sample group rate. Asocolflores 
notes that because they are out of business, neither company will be 
penalized by the rates, but that all of the other ``innocent'' 
companies in the sample will be penalized. Asocolflores requests that 
the Department exclude the two companies from the sample. If that is 
impossible, Asocolflores asks that the Department assign BIA rates at 
7.56 percent.
    Asocolflores enumerates reasons why Mountgar and Estrella should be 
excluded from the sample. First, the sample is required to be 
``representative of the transactions under investigation'' (19 U.S.C. 
1677f-1(b)), and a BIA rate cannot be considered to be representative. 
Second, the use of the BIA rates would violate the Department's 
practice of not basing sample, average, or ``all other''-type rates on 
BIA information, especially when there are reasons for non-cooperation.
    The FTC responds that Mountgar and Estrella should be incorporated 
in the sample. The FTC claims that because both companies did not 
respond to the questionnaire, it is impossible to know whether 72.35 
percent is representative. Furthermore, the FTC asserts that it is not 
uncommon for there to be a certain percentage of companies on the verge 
of going out of business in any industry, especially when there are 
many firms in that industry. Finally, the FTC also contends that there 
is precedent and judicial endorsement of the use of BIA rates in 
samples.
    Department's Position: The inclusion of BIA rates in a sample group 
rate cannot per se be prohibited. If it were, we would have to keep 
picking companies for a sample until we had only companies that would 
submit complete, verifiable responses. This would be administratively 
unfeasible because, at the time we chose the sample, we would not know 
which companies were willing and able to produce complete responses. 
More importantly, to choose in such a selective fashion would 
constitute a corruption of the integrity of the original random sample. 
Such corruption would violate 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(b), which, as 
respondents point out, requires that a sample be representative.
    We disagree with Asocolflores that, because Estrella and Mountgar 
are out of business, they should be excluded from the sample group. The 
sample group represents the universe of all growers and resellers that 
exported to the United States during the POR. Because Estrella and 
Mountgar exported during the POR, they are part of that universe. 
Regardless of what happened after the POR, nothing can change the fact 
that they are, and always will be, part of that universe. In selecting 
the sample, we cannot tamper with the population that the sample 
represents, nor can we tamper with the randomness of the sample 
selected. If we were to pick and choose firms selected at random for 
the sample based on qualitative factors, that sample would no longer be 
representative.
    The selection of BIA and the selection of a sample are entirely 
unrelated issues. Respondents have objected to our selection of BIA for 
Estrella and Mountgar, and we dealt with their concerns in our response 
to Comment 40. Once we determine that appropriate BIA for the two 
firms, we cannot accept the proposition that the chosen BIA is suitable 
for one purpose but not another. Having reasonably determined the 
appropriate BIA for Estrella and Mountgar, having inescapably concluded 
that Estrella and Mountgar are part of the sample universe, and having 
randomly selected Estrella and Mountgar for the sample group, we 
conclude that the BIA rates for the two firms must be included in the 
sample group.
    We disagree with respondents that the Department has a practice of 
not basing sample rates on BIA. In many cases, we have included BIA in 
our sample rate calculations. See e.g., Sweaters Wholly or in Chief 
Weight of Man-Made Fibers from Hong Kong, Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 63913 (December 
3, 1993). With respect to all other rates, while the Department did 
have a practice of not including BIA in the all others rates 
established in administrative reviews, the all others rate is not 
generally established in the LTFV investigation and remains in effect 
throughout the life of the proceeding. The all others rate from the 
LTFV investigation may include BIA rates.
    Comment 42: Asocolflores contends that the Department lacks the 
legal authority to sample among companies. Asocolflores claims that the 
statute by which the Department claims such authority, section 777A of 
the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1, limits sampling to instances 
involving either ``a significant volume of sales'' or ``a significant 
number of adjustments to prices,'' and that it does not extend to 
reviews involving a significant number of companies. Asocolflores 
further claims that the sampling of companies is not representative of 
the transactions being reviewed, and therefore violates the statute and 
the intent of Congress.
    Asocolflores also contends that sampling without notice and 
applying adverse BIA rates to innocent companies violates the due 
process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution. Asocolflores maintains that every importer has a 
constitutional right to antidumping duty assessments/cash deposits at 
rates and in amounts that reflect their individual levels of dumping.
    Asocolflores does not ask that the Department cease sampling by 
companies, but rather that it notify companies that sampling will be 
conducted and to offer individual analysis to companies that request 
it.
    The FTC agrees that the Department should not sample companies in 
administrative reviews.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Asocolflores and the FTC. 
Section 777A of the Tariff Act specifically authorizes the Department 
to use generally recognized sampling techniques in administrative 
reviews. Consistent with the final results of the second review we 
determine that the use of sampling techniques did not in any way 
preclude Colombian exporters from seeking and obtaining company-
specific rates. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 55 FR 20496 (May 17, 
1990). Furthermore, an exporter had the choice of (1) requesting a view 
and paying duties that reflect the exporter's actual margin of dumping 
during the review period, or (2) not requesting a review and risking 
duty assessment at a rate calculated on the basis of sample results. 
Because this choice rested entirely with the exporter, the risk 
associated with sampling was completely avoidable. See also Sweaters 
from Hong Kong, supra.
    Comment 43: Asocolflores claims that the methodology that the 
Department used to calculate the sample group rate was flawed. First, 
Asocolflores maintains that the calculation should be weighted by 
value, as is done in calculations of antidumping margins for individual 
companies. The Department, in calculating the sample group rate, made 
the calculation using volume data. Because the Department is 
calculating a rate of difference between FMV and U.S. price, 
Asocolflores argues that using volume data is inappropriate. 
Furthermore, because flowers are not sold by weight, but by stems or 
bunches, different flowers sell for different amounts by volume.
    Asocolflores also objects to the ``points'' methodology the 
Department used to assign weights. First, Asocolflores believes that 
the use of points created bias because it used rounded rather than 
actual figures. Second, because the points were picked at random before 
each company's weights were assigned, Asocolflores views the results as 
a random average rate, not a true weighted-average. Finally, 
Asocolflores criticizes the Department's excessive reliance on INCOMEX 
data, which is incomplete and erroneous, with such errors as 
approximation and double counting of companies.
    Asocolflores maintains that the Department should calculate an 
average sample group margin by weight--averaging the margin found for 
each of the sample group companies by shipment value.
    The FTC responds that the Department should not weight margins in 
the sample by sales value. In the FTC's opinion, a value-based sample 
would understate the actual amount of dumping because the more a 
company dumps, the less its value of sales will be. Consequently, the 
FTC argues that the higher the dumping margin for a company, the less 
weight it will be assigned in a value-based sample.
    The FTC argues that because the Department has not released 
information on how it assigned ``points'' in the sample, it is 
difficult to determine whether the Department's methodology is 
appropriate. The FTC agrees that the Department may have been wrong to 
rely on INCOMEX data, and asks why the Department did not use data from 
the Colombian National Department of Statistics, the U.S. Customs 
Service, or the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
    The FTC requests that the Department abandon its use of three 
strata in choosing companies for the sample and return to using two 
strata. The FTC contends that Asocolflores's objection on the grounds 
that ``companies with less than 6 percent of the total exports could be 
selected to the first stratum, which has over 70 percent of total 
exports'' is invalid because where an industry is comprised of many 
small firms, a small company may well be representative for use in the 
sample. The FTC also asks that the Department not accept objections 
from interested parties to firms chosen for the sample after the sample 
is chosen. Rather, the FTC maintains that objections should be 
entertained only before the sample is chosen.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC that sampling should 
be done on the basis of volume because values can be distorted if they 
represent dumped prices.
    Asocolflores is incorrect in stating that the Department picked 
points at random before each company's weights were assigned. As we 
explained in the Sampling section, points were assigned in proportion 
to each firm's share of total exports to the United States. Only then 
did the number of points relevant to the selected firm go ``into the 
hat.'' As for Asocolflores's contention that using rounded numbers 
produces a bias, each point represents a quarter of a percentage point 
of total exports to the United States. Therefore, if any bias was 
created, it was insignificant. Finally, with respect to the INCOMEX 
data, it is not unreasonable to rely on data provided by an official 
Colombian government agency, and these data were the only information 
available at the time we chose the sample.
    Comment 44: Asocolflores contends that the ``all others'' cash 
deposit rate of 3.10 percent from the LTFV investigation should not 
apply in this review. Previously, the rate for all other companies, 
i.e., companies that previously shipped but had not been reviewed and 
companies that did not ship prior to the date of the Department has 
been updating the ``all other'' rate in each review. Asocolflores also 
claims that entries from unreviewed ``all other'' companies should be 
liquidated at the cash deposit rate paid at the time of entry.
    The FTC responds that the 3.10 rate is the proper ``all other'' 
rate because it was the rate established in the original investigation. 
The FTC agrees that the rate cannot be changed from one review to 
another, but also agrees with the Department's decision to return to 
the original rate. Because the ``all other'' rate cannot be changed, it 
is logical to apply to unknown firms, for cash deposit purposes, the 
initially established rate, not the rate from the previous review.
    Department's Position: In Floral Trade Council v. United States 
(822 F. Supp. 771), the Court of International Trade stated that 19 CFR 
353.22(e) ``prevents abandonment of LTFV `all other' rates for `old 
shippers' which have never been investigated or reviewed.'' In the LTFV 
investigation of this case, the Department determined the ``all other'' 
rate to be 4.40 percent, but this was later modified to 3.10 percent in 
accordance with the remand ordered by the Court of International Trade 
in Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 
717 F. Supp. 834 (June 29, 1989), Remand Aff'd, August 8, 1989.
    The 3.10 percent all others rate will take effect prospectively 
only with the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Any entries from unreviewed companies through the date of 
publication of this notice will be liquidated at the cash deposit rate 
in effect at the time of entry.
    Comment 45: Asocolflores argues that the Department's practice of 
comparing annual constructed values to monthly average U.S. prices to 
determine whether dumping has occurred unfairly penalizes foreign 
producers. Flower prices are driven by demand, which is highly 
seasonal. This can result in price fluctuations of up to 250 percent 
between peak and off-peak months. Furthermore, flowers are perishable 
and cannot be stored or diverted. This being the case, producers have 
to look to make their profits during seasonal peaks, because there will 
be months where flower prices will be below production costs.
    Asocolflores maintains that this is standard business practice for 
the industry and contends that the Department has recognized this in 
its ``50 percent rule.'' When home market sales prices of agricultural 
products are used to determine FMV, the Department has allowed up to 50 
percent below cost sales. In the past, the Department has applied this 
rule over the entire POR, and not on a monthly basis.
    Asocolflores dismisses the Department's reason for using the 
monthly average U.S. prices, which is to avoid having dumping masked by 
allowing high prices in peak months to offset low prices in other 
months. This logic ignores the realities of the flower market, and 
ignores the rationale behind the 50 percent rule. Asocolflores suggests 
that the Department compare annual constructed value to annual average 
U.S. prices to determine whether dumping has occurred, or, at a 
minimum, implement its 50-percent rule if it is concerned about masked 
dumping.
    The FTC responds that the use of average monthly prices is 
consistent with Department precedent and has been affirmed in the 
courts. The FTC notes that the Department has reviewed this issue in 
the original investigation and in all subsequent reviews, and has found 
that the use of average monthly prices best strikes a balance between 
the perishability and seasonality issues on the one hand and the 
concerns of masked dumping on the other. The Court of International 
Trade has upheld the Department's decision in this matter in all 
challenges.
    According to the FTC, the Department's goal was to use as short a 
period as possible for averaging, and yet to account for perishability 
and seasonality. Though perishability could be accounted for by prices 
averaged on a weekly basis, monthly averaged prices would account for 
seasonality. Monthly averaged prices also had the advantage that actual 
price information for flower sales is generally only available on a 
monthly basis.
    The FTC contends that Asocolflores is merely repeating arguments 
that have been rejected in previous reviews, and has introduced no new 
data or arguments that would justify a change in Department policy on 
the matter. In light of this, the FTC urges the Department to continue 
to use the methodology adopted in the original investigation and 
subsequent reviews.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. We believe that 
monthly averaged U.S. prices adequately account for the characteristics 
of the flower industry, without overcompensating. Respondents' 
assertion that our use of monthly averaged U.S. prices conflicts with 
our use of a modified cost test (as applied to agricultural products) 
misconstrues the statute and theory underlying the exclusion of below-
cost sales from foreign market value. The statute makes allowances for 
below-cost sales only when the Department is relying upon home market 
and third country sales. These standards are intended to guide the 
Department in determining when to consider home market and third 
country sales and when to disregard them. Once a decision is made to 
use CV, such sales are irrelevant to a determination of foreign market 
value. Nothing in the statute, the legislative history, or the 
Department's practice (including Final Determination of Sales of Not 
Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Winter Vegetables From Mexico, 45 FR 20512 
(March 24, 1980)) supports the broad notion of annual averaged U.S. 
prices. Annual averaging would allow exporters to dump for entire 
months when demand is sluggish, so long as they recoup their losses 
during months of high demand. The Department is not required to measure 
whether profits are made upon an annual basis, especially not in an 
administrative review, when margins are normally determined on a sale-
by-sale basis (not annually).
    Contrary to respondents' assertions, the Department's approach is 
broad enough to eliminate, to a reasonable degree, a finding of 
technical dumping, without overcompensating for the characteristics of 
the flower industry. The Department's use of monthly averaging ensures 
that an entire range of distress and non-distress sales prices are 
covered, and is consistent with its established practice in this case, 
which has been upheld by the Court of International Trade. See Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 237 (CIT 1988), and Accord 
Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 704 
F. Supp. 1114 (CIT 1989).

Company-Specific Comments

    Comment 46: Asocolflores asserts that the Department should not 
have collapsed the Florex Group and Santa Helena into a single entity 
for the purpose of calculating a single weighted-average percent margin 
because the two entities are separate and operate independently. 
Asocolflores argues that the Florex Group and Santa Helena does not 
meet any of the Department's four criteria for collapsing two entities.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Asocolflores. In 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
From France, et al., 57 FR 28393 (June 24, 1992), the Department stated 
that ``where the type and degree of relationship is so significant that 
we find a strong possibility of price manipulation,'' it is the 
Department's practice to collapse related parties. For purposes of our 
analysis we have used the methodology most recently applied in Carbon 
Steel from Japan (1993) and recently upheld in another case by the 
Court of International Trade in Nihon Cement Co., Ltd., et al. v. 
United States and The Ad Hoc Committee of Southern California Producers 
of Gray Portland Cement, et al., Slip Op. 93-80 (CIT 1993):

    * * * the Department considered the following questions in a 
decision whether to collapse related parties: (1) Do the related 
manufacturers have interlocking boards of directors; (2) do they 
have similar production processes, facilities or equipment so as to 
facilitate shifting of production between facilities; (3) do they 
operate as separate and distinct entities; (4) do they share 
marketing and sales information or offices; and (5) are they 
involved in the pricing or production decision of the other entity?

    In Carbon Steel from Japan, the Department also stated that it 
``need not show all of these factors exist in order to collapse 
sufficiently related to create the possibility of price manipulation.'' 
See Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Japan, 58 FR 37154, 37158-37159 (July 9, 1993).
    We have determined that Santa Helena and the Florex Group meet 
three out of the five criteria relating to the above collapsing test. 
For further details, please see the Department's Collapsing Related 
Parties Memo to the file dated March 11, 1994.
    In addition, we have collapsed the Santa Helena and Florex Group 
data by combining the constructed value information for the same flower 
types and combining the sales information for the same flower types 
sold through the same importer.
    Comment 47: Asocolflores argues that the Department should have 
used Santa Helena's devalued peso borrowing rate to calculate imputed 
credit. Asocolflores notes that although the Department claims that 
these data were not included in Santa Helena's response, the data was 
in fact included in Table 1.4 of the company's original March 31, 1992 
response.
    Although it did not respond specifically to this company-specific 
issue, the FTC has argued that the Department should not adjust peso 
interest rates for peso devaluation against the dollar. See FTC Public 
Brief at 17-19.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent and have used the 
Group's actual peso borrowing rate, adjusted for devaluation, to impute 
the credit expense for the collapsed Santa Helena/Florex Group. See our 
response to Comment 2, above.
    Comment 48: Asocolflores claims that the Funza Group incorrectly 
reported the peso devaluation rate over the POR, and asks that the 
Department use the rate that it verified.
    The FTC responds that the Department is under no obligation to 
correct data supplied by respondents. The FTC also notes that it has 
argued against the practice of adjusting interest rates for 
devaluation.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent that the peso 
devaluation rate for the POR used in the preliminary results was 
incorrect. We have corrected the Funza Group's credit expense 
calculation in these final results accordingly. See our response to 
Comment 2, above.
    Comment 49: Las Amalias SA (Lasa) argues that it is not related to 
Ha Fleurette (LFC), CFX, or Agrowconsult, and that the Department 
should not collapse Lasa with these companies.
    Lasa claims that it is not related to La Fleurette under the 
definition provided by the Tariff Act of 1930, section 771(13). Lasa 
claims that La Fleurette was not the agent or principal of Lasa, that 
neither entity owned the other's stock, and that no person or persons 
owned 20 percent or more of either company. The only links between the 
two are that La Fleurette leased space and purchased subject flowers 
from Lasa at arm's-length, that Lasa provided certain administrative 
services and kept the books for La Fleurette for an arm's-length fee, 
and that there is one common shareholder who owned 7.5 percent of Lasa 
and 17.5 percent of La Fleurette during the POR.
    Lasa claims that it is not related to CFX under the above 
definition. Lasa made sales directly to CFX, and these transactions 
constitute the only relationship Lasa has with CFX.
    Finally, Lasa contends that it is not related to Agrowconsult. The 
only links between the two are that Lasa paid the owner of Agrowconsult 
a one-time consultant fee, that the two share office space that each 
entity pays for in accordance with their respective use of the space, 
and that the two used the same independent contractor for accounting 
services.
    The FTC responds that, based on the data provided by Lasa itself, 
Lasa is clearly related to all of the companies with which it has been 
collapsed. The FTC makes particular note that Lasa handled La 
Fleurette's bookkeeping and export documentation, and managed its 
checking account. Because La Fleurette is related to CFX and 
Agrowconsult, the FTC contends that as Lasa is related to La Fleurette, 
it is also related to these companies.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC that, based on the 
information provided by Las Amalias (Lasa), Lasa is related to all of 
the companies and should therefore be collapsed into one entity. We 
applied the standards outlined above in our response to Comment 46.
    We have determined that Las Amalias/Pompones meets four out of the 
five criteria relating to the collapsing test outlined in our response 
to Comment 46. For a complete analysis of Lasa's interrelationships 
with LFC and CFX and with Agrowconsult, see the Department's Memorandum 
to File dated March 11, 1994.
    Comment 50: Lasa maintains that the Department's use of BIA instead 
of the data supplied in its response is improper. Lasa argues that even 
if it were related to LaFleurette, CFX, or Agrowconsult, none of these 
companies sold subject flowers to the United States. Therefore, any 
relationship between Lasa and these companies does not affect the data 
Lasa supplied to the Department in its response, and the Department 
should use that data.
    The FTC responds that Lasa did not report its relationships to La 
Fleurette (LFC), CFX, or Agrowconsult, and that it did not report 
flowers sold in bouquets made by La Fleurette. Therefore, the 
Department should reject Lasa's questionnaire response and use an 
adverse rate of BIA.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. Because the 
Department has determined that Lasa is related to LFC and CFX, and to 
Agrowconsult, and that subject flowers sold in mixed bouquets are 
within the scope of the antidumping order (see our response to Comment 
1), the overwhelming majority of Lasa's sales are ESP transactions, not 
purchase price transactions. Because Lasa reported its sales to related 
parties in the United States as purchase price sales, when it should 
have reported the sales of its U.S. related parties to their customers 
(i.e., the first unrelated parties in the United States), we find the 
use of BIA to be justified. However, because Lasa substantially 
cooperated with our requests for information, including verification, 
but failed to provide the information in the form required, we are 
applying a second-tier BIA rate to Lasa. In Lasa's case, this is the 
highest calculated rate in this review, 7.56 percent.
    Comment 51: Lasa contends that the information it supplied in the 
questionnaire shows that it is entitled to a zero margin in the review. 
Lasa argues that because this will be the third consecutive review with 
zero margins, it is entitled to revocation under the regulations.
    The FTC responds that because Lasa failed to report either its 
relationships with other companies or its sales to the United States in 
the form of bouquets, it did not have a zero margin. Therefore, Lasa is 
not entitled to revocation.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. Lasa is not 
entitled to revocation under the Department's regulations because it 
has not received three consecutive years of zero margins, as required 
by the regulations. 19 CFR 353.25(a)(1)(i).
    Comment 52: The Agrodex Group Farms, Floralex, Ltda., and Flores La 
Union-Gomez Arango & Cia. S. en C. all claim that the Department has 
not made full disclosure of its preliminary calculation methodology, 
and that as a result it is impossible to provide detailed comments. The 
above firms ask that the Department make a full disclosure and provide 
the opportunity to make comments.
    The FTC responds that it reserves the right to respond to a 
supplemental case brief if accepted by the Department.
    Department's Position: Agrodex received disclosure materials in 
time to submit its case brief. While it is true that the firm was 
unable to pose questions to the case analyst, who was away on official 
business until January 24, 1994, we note that the company could have 
directed any questions to the analyst's supervisors, but chose not to 
do so. We also note that, although the case analyst returned to the 
office on January 24, 1994, counsel to Agrodex did not contact the 
analyst with questions about the disclosure materials until January 31, 
1994. See Memorandum to file dated February 1, 1994. According to this 
memorandum, the analyst was able to answer the relatively minor 
questions posed by counsel to Agrodex.
    At the hearing held on February 1, 1994, respondents indicated that 
their interests were prejudiced by the late disclosure and that they 
might want to submit further comments. However, the nature of the 
additional comments was not specified. Although we did not give a 
formal reply as to whether we would accept additional comments, we 
received no communication regarding plans to submit comments until just 
prior to a submission made on behalf of Agrodex on March 2, 1994. This 
submission was made well beyond the time period other parties had to 
submit their case briefs and well beyond any reasonable time extension 
that could be afforded under these circumstances. See Memorandum to 
File dated March 4, 1994 and attached letter. Therefore, we rejected 
the comments as untimely.
    Comment 53: Velez De Monchaux e Hijos y Cia. S. en C. claims that 
the Department used the wrong data in its calculations for that 
company. Velez De Monchaux maintains that the data did not include the 
corrections submitted on a computer diskette on May 14, 1992, and asks 
that the Department use the corrected submission for these final 
results.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent that the Department 
used the wrong disk for its calculation. We have used the corrected 
data that was substituted on a computer diskette on May 14, 1992, for 
its final results.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review of the comments received, we determine 
that there are margins in the amounts listed below for the period March 
1, 1990 through February 28, 1991.
    The following firms requested and received individual reviews:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                      Producer/exporter                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricola Cardenal S.A........................................       0.14
Agricola De La Fountana Ltda.................................       1.56
Agricola El Jardin...........................................       0.00
Agricola Las Cuadras Ltda....................................       0.30
  Flores De Hacaritama                                                  
Agricola Los Arboles S.A.....................................       2.08
Agrodex Group................................................       0.00
  Agricola El Retiro Ltda.                                              
  Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.                                             
  Agrodex Ltda.                                                         
  Degaflores Ltda.                                                      
  FlorLinda Ltda.                                                       
  Flores Camino Real Ltda.                                              
  Flores Colon Ltda.                                                    
  Flores De La Maria Ltda.                                              
  Flores De Las Mercedes Ltda.                                          
  Flores De Los Amigos Ltda.                                            
  Flores De Los Arrayanes Ltda.                                         
  Flores De Pueblo Viejo Ltda.                                          
  Flores Del Gallinero Ltda.                                            
  Flores Del Potrero Ltda.                                              
  Flores Dos Hectareas Ltda.                                            
  Flores El Lobo Ltda.                                                  
  Flores El Puente Ltda.                                                
  Flores El Trentino Ltda.                                              
  Flores Juanambu Ltda.                                                 
  Flores La Conejera Ltda.                                              
  Inverflores Ltda.                                                     
  Inverpalmas                                                           
  Inversiones Santa Rosa Arw Ltda.                                      
Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda..................................       2.70
Amalias Group................................................       7.56
  Las Amalias Ltda.                                                     
  Pompones Ltda.                                                        
Bochica Group................................................       1.35
  Agro Bosque, S.A.                                                     
  Exportaciones Bochica S.A.                                            
  Floral Ltda.                                                          
  Flores Del Cauca                                                      
  Inversiones Targa Ltda.                                               
  Productos El Zorro                                                    
Becerra Castellanos y Cia. Ltda..............................       1.49
Claveles Colombianas Group...................................       1.45
  Claveles Colombianos Ltda.                                            
  Fantasia Flowers Ltda.                                                
  Splendid Flowers Ltda.                                                
  Sun Flowers Ltda.                                                     
Cultivos Tahami Ltda.........................................       2.52
Dianticola Colombiana Ltda...................................       1.73
Florandia Herrera Camacho y Cia..............................       0.00
Flores Aurora Ltda...........................................       0.16
Flores Colombianas Group.....................................       0.00
  Agrosuba.                                                             
  Flores Colombianas Ltda.                                              
  Jardines De Los Andes S.A.                                            
  Productos El Cartucho                                                 
Flores Condor De Colombia Ltda...............................       0.00
Flores De La Vega Ltda.......................................       3.42
Flores De Serrezuela Ltda....................................       0.45
Flores Del Rio S.A...........................................       0.16
Flores Depina Ltda...........................................       0.00
Flores El Zorro Ltda.........................................       1.19
Flores La Union Gomez Arango.................................       0.00
Flores La Valvanera Ltda.....................................       0.26
Flores Las Caicas............................................       1.09
Flores Sagaro................................................       0.04
Flores Tiba S.A..............................................       0.48
Flores Tibati Ltda...........................................       0.00
Flores Urimaco...............................................       2.26
Florex Group.................................................       0.22
  Agricola Guacari                                                      
  Flores Altamira S.A.                                                  
  Flores De Exportacion S.A.                                            
  Santa Helena S.A.                                                     
Floricola La Guitana S.A.....................................       0.00
Funza Group..................................................       0.09
  Flores Alborada.                                                      
  Flores De Funza S.A.                                                  
  Flores Del Bosque Ltda.                                               
Grupo Andes..................................................       1.47
  Agricola Arenales Ltda.                                               
  Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.                                             
  Flores De Los Andes Ltda.                                             
  Flores Horizante Ltda.                                                
  Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.                                       
Guacatay Group...............................................       0.13
  Agricola Guacatay S.A.                                                
  Jardines Bacata Ltda.                                                 
Happy Candy Group............................................       0.46
  Flores Tropicales Ltda.                                               
  Happy Candy Ltda.                                                     
  Mercedes Ltda.                                                        
  Rosas Colombianas Ltda.                                               
Hosa Group...................................................       2.18
  Horticultura De La Sabana S.A.                                        
  Innovacion Andina S.A.                                                
  Minispray S.A.                                                        
Industrial Agricola Ltda.....................................       0.00
Ingro Ltda...................................................       7.31
Inversiones Cubivan..........................................       1.28
Linda Colombiana Ltda........................................       0.19
Papagayo Group...............................................       1.19
  Agricola Papagayo Ltda.                                               
  Inversiones Calyposo S.A.                                             
Queen's Flowers De Colombia..................................       0.03
  Queen's Flowers De Colombia Ltda.                                     
  Jardines De Chia Ltda.                                                
  Jardines De Fredonia Ltda.                                            
Rosas Sabanilla Group........................................       0.49
  Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.                                                 
  Inversiones La Serena                                                 
  Agricola La Capilla                                                   
Santa Rosa Group.............................................       1.96
  Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.                                               
  Floricola La Ramada Ltda.                                             
Tuchany S.A..................................................       0.00
Uniflor Ltda.................................................       2.52
Velez De Monchaux e Hijos Y Cia. S. en C.....................       2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following firms were among those requested by the petitioner 
and were selected for our sample: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                      Producer/exporter                        (percent)
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Stratum:                                                          
  Flores Arco Iris Ltda......................................       3.59
Second Stratum:                                                         
  Agricola De Los Alisos Ltda................................       5.36
  Agromonte Ltda.............................................       4.40
  Claveles De Los Alpes Ltda.................................       0.70
  Daflor Ltda................................................       0.00
  Floralex Ltda..............................................       0.00
  Flores Aquila Ltda.........................................       0.00
  Flores Arco Iris Ltda......................................       3.59
  Flores De Cajibio Ltda.....................................       0.30
  Flores De Hunza Ltda.......................................       6.04
  Flores De La Sabana S.A....................................       3.87
  Flores De Suba Ltda........................................       1.86
  Flores Del Campo Ktda......................................       3.05
  Flores El Arsenal Ltda.....................................       0.76
  Flores Estrella, Ltda......................................       7.56
  Flores Marandua Ltda.......................................       0.00
  Flores Mountgar, Ltda......................................      43.02
  Flores Tomine..............................................       1.13
  Inversiones Targa S.A. (Bochica Group).....................       1.35
  Jardines Del Muna..........................................       7.56
  Los Geranios Ltda..........................................       2.28
  Soagro Group...............................................       1.45
    Agricola El Mortino Ltda.                                           
    Flores Aquaclara Ltd.                                               
    Flores Del Monte Ltda.                                              
    Flores La Estancia Ltda.                                            
    Jaramillo Y Daza Ltdg.                                              
Third Stratum:                                                          
  Cultivos Miramonte S.A.....................................       0.48
  Santana Group..............................................       0.02
    Hacienda Curibital Ltda.                                            
    Inversiones Istra Ltda.                                             
    Santana Flowers Ltda.                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following firms were among those requested only by the 
petitioner but were not selected in the sample. They will receive the 
sample group rate of 3.13 percent.

Producer/Exporter

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia
Agricola Benilda Ltda.
Agricola Bojaca Ltda.
Agricola El Cactus S.A.
Agricola El Redil Ltda.
Agricola Malqui Ltda.
Agro Koralia Ltda.
Agroindustrial Del Riofrio Ltda.
Cienfuegos Ltda.
Conflores Ltda.
Crop S.A.
Cultivos Medellin Ltda.
Del Tropico Ltda.
Flora Bellisima Ltda.
Flores Alfaya Ltda.
Flores Cigarral Ltda.
Flores De La Montana.
Flores De La Pradera Ltda.
Flores De Nemecon Ltda.
Flores De Suesca Ltda.
Flores Del Lago Ltda.
Flores El Rosal Ltda.
Flores Estrella Ltda.
Flores Gicro Ltda.
Flores Guaicata Ltda.
Flores Hana Ichi De Colombia Ltda.
Flores Juncalito Ltda.
Flores La Cabanuela.
Flores La Conchita De German-Ribon y Cia.
Flores La Frangancia S.A.
Flores Monserrate Ltda.
Flores Mountgar Ltda.
Flores Petaluma Ltda.
Flores Santa Fe Ltda.
Flores Tairona Ltda.
Flores Tocarinda Ltda.
Flores Tokai Hisa
Groex S.A.
Inpar Ltda.
Interflora Ltda.
Inversiones Miraflores Ltda.
Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.
Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.
Iturrama S.A.
Jardines Carolina
M.G. Consultores Ltda.
Monteverde Ltda.
Plantaciones Delta Ltda.
Plantas Ornamentales De Colombia
Rosas De Exportacion Ltda. (Rosex)
Rosas Y Flores Ltda.
Shasta Flowers Y Cia Ltda.
Sunset Farms
Toto Flowers Ltda.

    The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between United States price and foreign market value may vary from the 
percentage as stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates 
as listed above; (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 less-than-fair-value 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 be the ``all 
other'' rate of 3.10 percent. This is the rate established during the 
LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to 
comply is a violation of the APO.
    This administrative review, revocation in part, and notice are in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22, 353.25.

    Dated: March 25, 1994.
Joseph Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-7714 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M