[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23195]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 20, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-301-801]

 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh 
Cut Roses From Colombia

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 20, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Maeder or James Terpstra, Office 
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3330, or (202) 482-3965.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that fresh cut roses (roses) from 
Colombia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (the Act), as amended. The estimated margins are shown in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the notice of initiation on March 7, 1994 (59 FR 11771, March 
14, 1994), the following events have occurred.
    On March 31, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
issued an affirmative preliminary determination.
    On April 19, 1994, the Department decided to collect constructed 
value (CV) information from all respondents in addition to home market 
or, where appropriate, third country sales information (See the April 
19, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford).
    On May 5, 1994, the Department issued sales and cost questionnaires 
to the following 16 Colombian companies: Agricola Benilda; Agrorosas 
S.A.; Flores La Fragancia S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A.; Grupo Andes; Grupo 
Bojaca; Caicedo Group; Grupo Clavecol; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo 
Intercontinental; Grupo Papagayo; Grupo Prisma; Grupo Sabana; Grupo 
Sagaro; Grupo Tropicales; and Rosex LTDA. These companies accounted for 
approximately 40 percent of the exports of the subject merchandise 
during the period of investigation (POI). Although the Department 
``normally will examine not less than 60 percent of the dollar value or 
volume of the merchandise sold'' during the POI, 19 CFR 353.42(b)(1), 
due to limited administrative resources the Department chose to examine 
less than 60 percent (See the May 2, 1994, memorandum from the team to 
Barbara R. Stafford).
    On June 24, 1994, the Floral Trade Council, petitioner in this 
investigation, requested a postponement of the preliminary 
determination until September 12, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.15(c) 
(1993). As we found no compelling reason to deny the request, the 
Department granted this request on June 28, 1994 (59 FR 34409, July 5, 
1994).
    On June 24, 1994, the Department relieved all respondents except 
Caicedo Group from the requirement of reporting sales of roses imported 
and/or sold as part of bouquets (See the June 24, 1994, memorandum from 
the team to Barbara R. Stafford). On this same date, the Department 
also instructed respondents to report monthly-average price data for 
the U.S. market, home market, and where appropriate, third country 
markets (See the June 24, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. 
Stafford).
    Also on June 24, 1994, the Department determined that eight of the 
respondents (Agricola Benilda; Flores La Fragancia S.A.; Grupo Bojaca; 
Caicedo Group; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo Intercontinental; Grupo 
Papagayo; and Grupo Prisma) had viable home markets and were instructed 
to report home market sales data as the basis for foreign market value 
(FMV).
    In addition, the Department determined that four of the respondents 
(Grupo Clavecol; Grupo Sabana; Grupo Sagaro and Grupo Tropicales) did 
not have viable home markets and instructed the respondents to report 
third country sales data as a potential basis for FMV (See the June 24, 
1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford). However, since 
respondents argued that third country markets were fundamentally 
different from the U.S. market, it was decided that the final basis for 
FMV for these last four respondents (either third country sales or CV) 
would not be determined until more information was received (See the 
``Third Country Sales Versus Constructed Value'' section of this notice 
for further discussion).
    The Department also instructed four of the respondents (Agrorosas 
S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A.; Grupo Andes; and Rosex LTDA) to report CV as 
the basis for FMV as the volume of sales in neither the home market nor 
third countries was adequate.
    On June 29, 1994, one of the four respondents in the second 
category above, Grupo Sagaro, submitted an amendment to its 
questionnaire response. In that amendment, Grupo Sagaro stated that, 
based on further review, it did have a viable home market. After 
reviewing the new sales information, the Department agreed and on July 
8, 1994, we instructed Grupo Sagaro to base its FMV on home market 
sales.
    Respondents submitted responses to the Department's sales and cost 
questionnaires in May and July 1994. The Department issued deficiency 
sales and cost questionnaires in June, July, August and September 1994. 
Respondents submitted their responses to these deficiency sales and 
cost questionnaires in June and August 1994. Agricola Benilda submitted 
a comprehensive revision of its sales and cost information on September 
8, 1994. Agrorosas S.A. submitted minor pre-verification corrections on 
September 9, 1994.
    On July 5, 1994, petitioner requested that the Department reject 
home market sales as a basis for FMV for nine of the respondents for 
which the home market was viable. Petitioner stated that these sales 
were not in the ordinary course of trade. On July 11, 1994, the 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to determine if the sales 
reported were in the ordinary course of trade. On July 25, 1994, the 
respondents provided their responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires.
    On July 28, 1994, petitioner alleged that the nine respondents 
which had viable home markets sold roses in the home market at prices 
below their cost of production (COP). Petitioner also alleged that 
Grupo Tropicales sold roses in one of its two third country markets, 
Argentina, at prices below its COP.
    On August 22, 1994, the Department instructed Rosex to file a 
consolidated response with Rosas Sausalito and Induflora. This response 
is due on September 12, 1994. For our preliminary determination we 
based our analysis on only Rosex's data.
    On September 8, 1994, the Department initiated COP investigations 
against the nine respondents with viable home markets and against 
Argentine sales for Grupo Tropicales (See the September 8, 1994, 
memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
    Based on information obtained from the respondents which had viable 
home markets, the Department determined on September 9, 1994, that home 
market sales were in the ordinary course of trade and, therefore, could 
be used in the Department's analysis (See the September 9, 1994, 
memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford).
    On September 12, 1994, the Department decided to base FMV for Grupo 
Clavecol, Grupo Sabana and Grupo Tropicales on third country sales (See 
the September 12, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. 
Stafford). For a further discussion, see the ``Third Country Sales'' 
section of this notice.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are fresh cut roses, 
including sweethearts or miniatures, intermediates, and hybrid teas, 
whether imported as individual blooms (stems) or in bouquets or 
bunches. Roses are classifiable under subheadings 0603.10.6010 and 
0603.10.6090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The Department initiated this investigation using our standard six-
month POI from September 1, 1993, to February 28, 1994. On March 30 and 
April 11, respondents submitted comments on the POI. On April 5, 1994, 
petitioner also submitted comments on the POI. On April 14, 1994, the 
Department altered the POI to calendar year 1993 because of the 
seasonal nature of sales and production in the rose industry (See the 
April 14, 1994, memorandum from the team to Richard W. Moreland).
    In addition, for purposes of price-to-price comparisons, we are 
basing FMV on two six-month periods: January 1, 1993, through June 30, 
1993; and July 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993. For a further 
discussion of these periods, see the September 12, 1994, concurrence 
memorandum.

Best Information Available

    We have determined, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, 
that the use of best information available (BIA) is appropriate for 
sales of the subject merchandise by the following respondents: (1) 
Agricola Benilda; (2) Grupo Intercontinental; (3) Grupo Prisma and (4) 
Grupo Andes.
    In assigning BIA, the Department applies a two-tiered methodology 
based on the degree of respondent's cooperation. In the first tier, the 
Department normally assigns higher margins (i.e., margins based on more 
adverse assumptions) for those respondents which did not cooperate in 
an investigation or which otherwise impeded the proceeding. If a 
respondent is deemed non-cooperative, the Department bases the 
preliminary margin for the relevant class or kind of merchandise on the 
higher of: (1) The highest margin in the petition or (2) the highest 
calculated margin of any respondent within that country that supplied 
adequate responses for the relevant class or kind of merchandise.
    In the second tier, the Department assigns lower margins to those 
respondents who substantially cooperate in an investigation. These 
margins are based on the higher of: (1) The highest calculated margin 
for any respondent within the country that supplied adequate 
information for the relevant class or kind of merchandise or (2) the 
average margin of the margins in the petition (See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings 
(Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal 
Republic of Germany, (54 FR 18992, May 3, 1989)).
    The Department's two-tiered methodology for assigning BIA has been 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (See 
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 
1993); See also Krupp Stahl AG v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 
1993)).
    For Agricola Benilda, Grupo Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma, we 
have determined that these respondents' original and deficiency 
questionnaire responses were unusable for the preliminary determination 
because they contained significant deficiencies (See the September 12, 
1994, memorandum from David L. Binder to Barbara R. Stafford). In 
addition, Agricola Benilda submitted substantial revisions to its sales 
and cost information on September 8, 1994.
    However, because Agricola Benilda, Grupo Andes, Grupo 
Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma responded to our requests for 
information, we find that these respondents have been substantially 
cooperative for purposes of this preliminary determination. 
Accordingly, we used as second-tier BIA for these respondents the 
average of the margins contained in the petition, which is 55.94 
percent. This margin is higher than the highest margin calculated for 
any respondent in this investigation.
    Furthermore, we have issued supplemental deficiency letters to 
Agricola Benilda, Grupo Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma. If these 
respondents submit adequate and timely responses to these letters, we 
will conduct verification for these respondents and will consider their 
information for purposes of the final determination.
    For Grupo Andes, we have determined that this respondent has failed 
to respond adequately to the Department's deficiency questionnaire and 
failed to inform the Department in a timely manner that it had 
sufficient sales of export-quality roses in the home market to deem the 
home market viable. While Grupo Andes stated that its home market was 
not viable, analysis of its deficiency response has indicated that its 
home market is, in fact, viable.
    Grupo Andes' failure to correctly indicate that its home market 
was, in fact, viable constitutes a material error: the determination of 
what basis in which to make price comparisons is central to the entire 
dumping analysis.
    While Andes has substantially cooperated in this investigation, the 
history of its responses indicates that the information reported was 
highly unreliable, and its failure to report home market sales was a 
fundamental error. Because of the serious errors in Andes' reporting, 
we would have needed a materially new response. We find that there is 
insufficient time prior to verification in which to analyze such a 
response and any possible supplemental responses. For these reasons we 
will not be conducting verification for this respondent and will also 
base the margin for Grupo Andes in the final determination on 
cooperative BIA (See the September 9, 1994, memorandum from David L. 
Binder to Barbara R. Stafford).

Such or Similar Comparisons

    We have determined that all roses covered by this investigation 
comprise two categories of ``such or similar'' merchandise: culls and 
export-quality roses. None of the respondents reported sales of culls 
in the United States. Therefore, no comparisons in this such or similar 
category were made. Regarding export quality roses, where possible, we 
made comparisons of identical merchandise. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market or third country market to 
compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise comparisons on the 
basis of: (1) Form (e.g., as part of a bouquet, an individual stem, 
etc.); (2) type (e.g., hybrid tea, sweetheart, etc.); (3) color; (4) 
stem length; and (5) variety. We did not make any adjustments for 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise because 
respondents reported no cost differences between the products.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of roses from Colombia to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States 
price (USP) to the FMV for all non-BIA respondents, as specified in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this 
notice.

United States Price

    For sales by all non-BIA respondents except Floramerica, we based 
USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
when the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers in the 
United States prior to importation and when exporter's sales price 
(ESP) methodology was not otherwise indicated.
    In addition, for all non-BIA respondents, where sales to the first 
unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United 
States, we based USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the 
Act.
    For all U.S. prices, we used weighted-average monthly U.S. prices 
(See the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).
    During the POI, some of the respondents paid commissions to related 
parties in the United States. We determined that these commissions were 
directly related to the sales under consideration. We also tested these 
commissions for these respondents to determine whether they were paid 
at arm's length using the criteria set forth in the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Belgium 
(56 FR 56359, November 4, 1991). Where we found that they were paid at 
arm's length, we deducted them from USP. However, we found that 
respondents used these commissions as a mechanism for reimbursing their 
related parties for their actual expenses. Accordingly, in order to 
avoid double-counting, where the actual expenses of the related party 
were less than the commissions, we deducted only the commissions. Where 
the commissions were less than the actual expenses, we also deducted 
the amount by which the actual expenses exceeded the commissions (See 
the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).
    Finally, for those respondents who had related parties in the 
United States and did not report inventory carrying costs on their ESP 
sales, we calculated these costs for these respondents using an 
inventory carrying period of seven days. This is the maximum amount of 
time which may transpire between the time a rose is cut and when it 
must be sold to the ultimate customer, according to a public report by 
Harry K. Tayama, PhD., submitted by respondents in this investigation. 
For companies with sales to unrelated parties, we accepted that 
inventory carrying costs were included in U.S. credit expenses.
    We made company-specific adjustments, as discussed below:

1. Agrorosas S.A.

    For Agrorosas, U.S. purchase price was based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. and Colombian indirect selling 
expenses, brokerage and handling charges, commissions, U.S. import 
duties, direct selling expenses, and credit expenses.

2. Flores La Fragancia S.A.

    For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we calculated purchase price based on 
packed, f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland 
freight and air freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, credit expenses and 
U.S. and Colombian indirect selling expenses including inventory 
carrying costs.

3. Flores Mocari S.A.

    For Flores Mocari S.A., we calculated purchase price based on 
packed, f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air 
freight and U.S. import duties.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, credit expenses and 
other direct selling expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted 
the greater of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.

4. Grupo Bojaca

    For Grupo Bojaca, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, brokerage and handling 
and credit expenses.

5. Caicedo Group

    For Caicedo Group, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight, 
air freight, U.S. import duties, and U.S. inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, Columbian Flower Council (CFC) fee, foreign inland freight, 
air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight, repacking 
expenses, and credit expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted 
the greater of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.

6. Grupo Clavecol

    For Grupo Clavecol, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and foreign inland 
freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, 
credit expenses and U.S. and Colombian indirect selling expenses 
including inventory carrying costs. Because Clavecol did not adequately 
support its reported interest rate, we used the highest public interest 
rate on the record in the companion investigation of roses from Ecuador 
which is a ranged value for a U.S. subsidiary of an Ecuadoran rose 
producer, Guaisa, of 10 percent (See the September 12, 1994, 
concurrence memorandum and the September 9, 1994, memorandum to the 
file).

7. Grupo Floramerica

    For Grupo Floramerica, we calculated ESP based on packed prices to 
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import 
duties, brokerage and handling, United States Department of Agriculture 
inspection fees, warranty expenses including billing credits, 
promotional fees, credit expenses and U.S., Panamanian and Colombian 
indirect selling expenses including inventory carrying costs.

8. Grupo Papagayo

    For Grupo Papagayo, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and other 
expenses.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight, 
brokerage and handling charges, Colombian indirect selling expenses 
including inventory carrying costs, direct selling expenses including 
credit, other expenses, and commissions paid to unrelated parties.

9. Grupo Sabana

    For Grupo Sabana, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight, 
air freight and U.S. import duties.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties and 
credit expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted the greater of 
related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.

10. Grupo Sagaro

    For Grupo Sagaro, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties and credit expenses.

11. Grupo Tropicales

    For Grupo Tropicales, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and air 
freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, credit expenses, other 
direct selling expenses, and U.S. and Colombian indirect selling 
expenses including inventory carrying costs.

12. Rosex LTDA

    For Rosex LTDA, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, brokerage and handling 
and credit expenses.

Foreign Market Value

    In calculating FMV, wherever there were no sales of comparable 
merchandise in the home market or third country markets, we based FMV 
on CV. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.58, for price to 
price comparisons, we compared U.S. sales to home market or third 
country sales made at the same level of trade, where possible.
    We have three different bases for FMV: (1) Home market sales; (2) 
third country sales; and (3) constructed value. Each is discussed 
separately below:

Home Market Sales

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of fresh 
cut roses in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales of export quality 
roses to the volume of third country sales of export quality roses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Based on this 
comparison, we determined that nine of the 16 respondents had viable 
home markets. The nine companies were: Agricola Benilda; Flores La 
Fragancia S.A.; Grupo Bojaca; Caicedo Group; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo 
Intercontinental; Grupo Papagayo; Grupo Prisma and Grupo Sagaro. 
However, we did not use home market sales for Agricola Benilda, Grupo 
Intercontinental, Grupo Prisma or Grupo Andes because we based the 
margin for these companies on BIA. In addition, we based Grupo Andes' 
margin on BIA because we found that it had misrepresented its home 
market as nonviable (See the ``Best Information Available'' section of 
this notice for a further discussion).
    Because petitioner's allegations, when considered in light of the 
information on the record, gave the Department ``reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect'' that the nine respondents with known viable home 
markets were selling roses in Colombia at prices below their COP, the 
Department initiated COP investigations to determine whether these 
respondents had home market sales that were made at less than their 
respective COPs (See the September 8, 1994, memorandum from Richard W. 
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford). Respondents requested that we depart 
from our normal practice and interpret our COP analysis in such a 
manner as to either accept or reject all sales. We denied this request 
as unreasonable (See the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).
    In keeping with our past practice involving perishable agricultural 
products where we found less than 50 percent of a respondent's sales of 
roses were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost 
sales because we determined that the respondent's below-cost sales were 
not made in substantial quantities (See Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables 
From Mexico 45 FR 20512 (1980)). Where we found between 50 and 90 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below 
the COP, and the below cost sales were made over an extended period of 
time, we disregarded only the below-cost sales. Where we found that 
more than 90 percent of respondent's sales were at prices below the 
COP, and the sales were made over an extended period of time, we 
disregarded all sales for that product and calculated FMV based on CV.
    In order to determine whether home market prices were above the 
COP, we calculated the COP based on the sum of a respondent's cost of 
cultivation, general expenses, and packing. We calculated CV based on 
the sum of a respondent's cost of cultivation, plus general expenses, 
profit and U.S. packing. For general expenses, which includes selling 
and financial expenses (SG&A), we used the greater of the reported 
general expenses or the statutory minimum of ten percent of the cost of 
cultivation. For profit, we used the greater of the weighted-average 
third country profit during the POI or the statutory minimum of eight 
percent of the cost of cultivation and general expenses, in accordance 
with section 773(e)(B) of the Act.
    For all respondents, we corrected the calculation of interest 
expense for COP to remove the offset to this expense. This reduction to 
interest expense is only applicable for CV calculations. Interest 
expense for all respondents was corrected to a per-unit amount. 
Further, for all respondents we based the amortization expense upon the 
amounts normally recorded by each company in its usual record keeping. 
We rejected adjustments that companies made to the amortization expense 
solely for purposes of this investigation. We also made specific 
adjustments to respondents' COP and CV data as described below:

1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.

    For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we: (1) Corrected the calculation of 
greenhouse plastic amortization to reflect the methodology normally 
used by the company; (2) corrected the reported ``material for 
greenhouse frames'' to agree with the underlying schedules provided in 
the response; (3) corrected the reported net financing costs to agree 
to the underlying schedules; and (4) corrected for a mathematical error 
in the calculation of SG&A expenses.

2. Grupo Bojaca

    For Grupo Bojaca, we corrected the reported general and 
administrative (G&A) expense amount to reflect the amount reported in 
the company's financial statement.

3. Caicedo Group

    For Caicedo Group, we included the expenses associated with a 
freeze which occurred during the POI, and removed the effect of 
erroneous crop adjustment amounts (i.e., capitalizing more costs than 
the total accumulated amount) reported in the COP calculation.

4. Grupo Papagayo

    For Grupo Papagayo, we removed the effect of erroneous crop 
adjustment amounts (i.e., capitalizing more costs than the total 
accumulated amount) reported in the COP calculation.
    In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as 
described below:

1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.

    For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we calculated FMV based on delivered 
prices to unrelated customers in the home market.
    For home market price to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made 
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs.
    For home market price to ESP comparisons, we deducted the weighted-
average home market indirect selling expenses, including, where 
appropriate, inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater 
of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on 
U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) (See the September 
12, 1994, concurrence memorandum). We deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home 
market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, 
up to the amount of the greater of related party commissions or 
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2).

2. Grupo Bojaca

    For Grupo Bojaca, more than 90 percent of Grupo Bojaca's home 
market sales were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded all home 
market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we deducted the weighted-average home 
market indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, 
inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the indirect selling 
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b)(2).

3. Caicedo Group

    For Caicedo Group, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to 
unrelated customers in the home market. We excluded from our analysis 
home market sales that were ultimately exported.
    For home market price to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made 
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses and CFC fee. We deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs.
    For home market price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where 
appropriate, for credit expenses. We also deducted the weighted-average 
home market indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, 
inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related 
party commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses and CFC fee.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home 
market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, 
up to the amount of the greater of related party commissions or 
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2).
    For comparisons involving ESP sales, we revised U.S.-incurred 
indirect selling expense to: (a) Include sales to local vendors in the 
calculation of the indirect selling expense ratio and (b) deduct U.S. 
inland freight expenses that were reported as indirect selling 
expenses.

4. Grupo Floramerica

    For Grupo Floramerica, more than 90 percent of Grupo Floramerica's 
home market sales were found to be at prices below their COP. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded 
all home market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home 
market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling 
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b)(2).

5. Grupo Papagayo

    For Grupo Papagayo, more than 90 percent of its home market sales 
were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, we disregarded 
all home market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.
    Due to the deficiencies found in respondent's reported home market 
sales data, we disallowed home market inland freight, packing costs, 
indirect selling expenses, and imputed credit from the dumping margin 
calculation for purposes of the preliminary determination.
    On September 9, 1994, Agrorosas submitted a letter containing some 
pre-verification corrections pertaining to its sales and cost data. 
Given the limited time available to the Department to examine the newly 
submitted information, this information is not used in the preliminary 
determination dumping margin. However, the newly submitted information 
will be subject to verification and will be considered in the final 
determination of this investigation.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of 
sales adjustment for direct selling. We also added U.S. commissions.
    No deductions were made for CV to ESP comparisons due to 
disallowing home market indirect selling expenses from the margin 
calculation.

6. Grupo Sagaro

    For Grupo Sagaro, more than 90 percent of its home market sales 
were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded all home market sales and 
calculated FMV based on CV.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount 
of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 
19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

Third Country Versus Constructed Value

    On March 30, 1994, counsel for 14 of the 16 respondents requested 
that the Department reject third-country sales and rely instead on 
constructed value as the basis for FMV.
    The Department's normal preference, based on its regulations, is to 
utilize third-country sales rather than constructed value when there is 
a viable third country market. See 19 CFR 353.48(b). Respondents have 
urged departure from this practice, citing Certain Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
55 FR 20491 (May 17, 1990)(Flowers). The Department determined in 
Flowers that departure from our normal practice was warranted after an 
analysis of three unusual factors present in that case. Respondents 
argue that the facts in this investigation present even more compelling 
reasons to reject third-country sales than were present in Flowers. In 
determining whether the circumstances in this case are such that it 
should fall under the exception established in Flowers, we have 
analyzed the information presented in light of the three factors set 
forth in Flowers: (1) Negative correlation of price and volume 
movements between markets; (2) peak to non-peak comparisons; and (3) 
the perishability of the subject merchandise.
    As a threshold matter, we note that the record in this case is 
different from Flowers in that European markets play a relatively less 
important role in our analysis. In Flowers, the Department's analysis 
focused solely on a comparison of the U.S. market with European markets 
as the vast majority of third country markets under consideration were 
in Europe. The Department did not evaluate conditions in other markets. 
In this case, and the companion investigation in Ecuador, respondents 
reported significant sales to Argentina and Canada, as well as Europe. 
Respondents in this case have submitted additional information for all 
the relevant markets--Europe, Canada, and Argentina. However, it is not 
clear that the information submitted up to this point supports 
respondents' assertion that sales in the third country markets should 
not be compared to U.S. sales in this case.

Negative Correlation Factor

    In Flowers, the Department found a negative correlation between 
price and volume movements in the United States and European markets. 
This negative correlation indicated that price differences between 
markets could either mask or exaggerate dumping. The Department 
determined that the negative correlation was caused by a number of 
elements, including: (1) The greater price and volume volatility of the 
U.S. market; (2) the sporadic, gift-giving nature of U.S. demand; (3) 
respondents' lack of access to the European auctions (the main 
distribution point for flowers in Europe), and (4) differing peak price 
periods.
    Respondents argue that, in this case, there is similar evidence of 
a negative correlation of price and volume movements between the U.S. 
and third country markets. In support of their position, respondents 
have submitted several reports. A 1994 report by Professor Tayama 
analyzes, among other things, the consumption patterns for roses in the 
United States, Europe, Canada and Argentina, and compares seasonal and 
holiday purchasing patterns in the markets. Tayama asserts that both 
Europe and Canada have mature and relatively stable markets because 
both markets are supply driven (i.e., in times of peak production as 
supply increases, prices go down). In contrast, Tayama claims that' the 
U.S. market is demand driven--the majority of sales are made for 
Valentine's Day when demand increases and prices rise. With regard to 
Argentina, Tayama states that roses are grown for home consumption and 
imports occur mainly during the winter months, as in Europe. Moreover, 
Tayama asserts, Argentina has a different seasonal and holiday pattern 
from the United States. No market, he states, has the extraordinary 
demand for roses that exists in the U.S. market on Valentine`s Day.
    Petitioners have countered Tayama's assertions with an August 10, 
1994, submission which contains, among other things, a report by Roses 
Inc., an association of U.S. rose producers. The Roses Inc. report 
raises questions about the conclusions in the Tayama report, asserting 
that: 1) there is a global market for roses which is driven by demand 
everywhere; and 2) key holiday periods are actually very similar 
between the United States and Europe--specifically that the highest 
prices in both the United States and Europe occur in February. Thus, we 
are not in a position to conclude that the Tayama report provides a 
sufficient basis to determine that comparison of U.S. sales to third 
country sales is inappropriate.
    In support of the conclusions drawn in the Tayama report, 
respondents submitted the 1994 Fresh Cut Roses: Issues in the 
Estimation of Dumping in the U.S. Market (Botero Report) which contains 
a statistical analysis of the United States, European, and Canadian 
markets and seeks to demonstrate the lack of correlation between price 
movements in the third country and U.S. markets. The Botero Report 
provides three types of statistical analyses which, according to 
respondents, support their contention that third country prices should 
not be used due to the ``different equilibrium conditions'' of these 
markets as compared to the U.S. market for roses. First, Botero 
analyzes price movements within the United States, Europe and Canada, 
from which he concludes that different market forces are at work (i.e., 
price and quantity movements within Europe and Canada are negatively 
correlated and price and quantity movements within the United States 
are positively correlated). Second, Botero analyzes price and quantity 
movements across markets and concludes that there is no correlation 
between the U.S. market and either the European or Canadian markets. 
Third, he estimates the price cycles for roses in the U.S., European 
and Canadian markets and concludes that ``the seasonal patterns of the 
two markets [U.S. and European, U.S. and Canadian] are different and 
therefore monthly price comparisons do not reflect price 
discrimination.'' Botero asserts that these test results demonstrate 
that prices in these third country markets should not be compared to 
prices in the U.S. market to determine price discrimination.
    We have reviewed the Botero Report and have concerns regarding the 
data and the statistical parameters used to perform the statistical 
analysis on European, Canadian and U.S. rose prices. For example, Dr. 
Botero's relied on prices that may not be comparable. U.S. prices for a 
single hybrid tea variety rose were compared to European prices for all 
hybrid tea variety roses; and U.S. import prices, rather than U.S. 
domestic prices, were compared to European domestic prices. These 
comparisons may be inappropriate--we have no basis to conclude that a 
single hybrid tea rose is representative of all hybrid tea roses, or 
that U.S. import prices are representative of U.S. domestic prices. 
Moreover, Dr. Botero's F-test results appear to be invalid. Dr. Botero 
apparently used the incorrect degrees of freedom--(k,n-2) instead of 
(k-1,n-2). More importantly, Dr. Botero appears to have misread the ``F 
Table'': he reported the value of Fn-2,k at the 99 percent 
confidence level, rather than Fk-1,n-2 at the 99 percent 
confidence level. Finally, Dr. Botero provided no explanation of his 
use of a 99 percent confidence level.
    In light of these questions, the Department, at this stage, finds 
the information on the record inconclusive as to whether the third 
country and U.S. markets are negatively correlated. We intend to 
further evaluate the Botero Report for purposes of making our final 
determination. Further details relating to this issue are set forth in 
the September 12, 1994, memorandum to Barbara Stafford.

Peak to Non-Peak Factor

    Third country sales in Flowers were not made over the entire year. 
They were made only in peak months. The record established that 
Colombian growers had little access to the European auction system and 
were only able to export flowers to Europe during those months when 
domestic supply was low. On the other hand, the Colombian growers 
targeted 80 percent of their production to the U.S. market and made 
sales to the United States in every month. As a result, the Department 
determined that it was unable to make contemporaneous sales comparisons 
in all months and would be required to compare low-value U.S. sales in 
off-peak months with high-value third country sales in peak months.
    The circumstances on the record in this case are somewhat 
different. One of the three companies reporting third country sales has 
year-round sales to a single third country market, while the other two 
companies have third country sales in every month in the markets 
selected by the Department pursuant to Sec. 353.49(c). Therefore, it 
appears that the Department may have sufficient contemporaneous sales 
in the aggregate for all twelve months of the POI. Further, the 
Department has based FMV on two six-month averages; the use of such 
averages also should reduce any potential for distortion.

Perishability Factor

    The third factor considered in Flowers was related to the role of 
perishability on production and sale. This factor included: (1) The 
extreme perishability of the subject merchandise; (2) the inability of 
producers to control short-term production; and (3) the inability to 
store or make alternative use of the product. The Department found that 
the respondents planned 80 percent of their production around the U.S. 
market and sold excess production in markets in which they did not 
necessarily plan to sell. These factors combined to create a ``chance 
element'' to third country sales which raised the concern that any 
observed price differences would be unrelated to dumping.
    We note that there are substantial similarities between flowers and 
roses. First, roses, like flowers, are extremely perishable. Second, 
rose growers have relatively greater, though still minor, control over 
short-term production than flower growers because of their ability to 
pinch back buds. Third, as with flowers, roses cannot be stored and we 
note that there are only very minor alternative uses (e.g., drying). 
While some respondents are able to sell a small percentage of their 
production to markets other than the United States as a regular part of 
their business plan, which reduces to some extent the ``chance'' 
element to selling excess production, we note that this was also true 
with some companies in Flowers. See Methodological Issues Concerning 
Colombian Cut Flowers, Sparks Commodities, Inc. 1989.
    In view of the questions raised above, we conclude that, for the 
purpose of the preliminary determination, the evidence at this stage is 
not sufficient to justify departure from our normal practice of 
reliance on third country prices. However, we intend to revisit this 
issue in our final determination in light of further information and 
analysis with regard to the three factors set out in Flowers as well as 
any other facts that might be relevant on this issue.

Third Country Sales

    For three of the 16 respondents, the home market was not viable; 
therefore, we based FMV on third country sales (See the September 12, 
1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford). These three 
companies and their selected third country markets were: Grupo Clavecol 
(Argentina and Canada); Grupo Sabana (Canada); and Grupo Tropicales 
(Argentina and Germany). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(c), we 
selected for two of these respondents more than one third country 
because a single third country did not meet the Department's viability 
standards.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49, we selected the appropriate third 
country market(s) for each respondent based on the following criteria: 
similarity of merchandise sold in the third country to the merchandise 
exported to the United States, the volume of sales to the third 
country, and the similarity of market organization and development 
between the third country and U.S. markets. For a complete discussion 
of the selection of third country market(s), see the June 24, 1994, 
memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford.
    Based on petitioner's allegations that Grupo Tropicales was selling 
roses in Argentina at prices below its COP, and information on the 
record, the Department had a reasonable basis to suspect or believe 
that sales were made below cost and therefore initiated a COP 
investigation to determine whether Grupo Tropicales had Argentine sales 
that were made at prices less than their COP. Although Grupo Tropicales 
also had third country sales to Germany, we did not initiate a COP 
investigation on these sales because they were not included in 
petitioner's COP allegation (See the September 8, 1994, memorandum from 
Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
    For a discussion of our COP test methodology, see the ``Home Market 
Sales'' section above. We made no adjustments to the COP and CV data 
submitted by Grupo Tropicales.
    In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as 
described below:

1. Grupo Clavecol

    For Grupo Clavecol, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to 
unrelated customers in Argentina and Canada.
    For third country to purchase price comparisons, we made deductions 
for foreign inland freight, air freight, and brokerage and handling, 
where applicable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 
CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments, where 
appropriate, for credit expenses. We deducted third country packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    For third country to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight and brokerage and 
handling. We also deducted the weighted-average Argentine and Canadian 
indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, inventory 
carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related party 
commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.

2. Grupo Sabana

    For Grupo Sabana, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to 
unrelated customers in Canada.
    For third country price to purchase price comparisons, we made 
deductions for Canadian inland freight, air freight, Canadian import 
duties, U.S. brokerage and Colombian inland freight. Pursuant to 
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made 
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit 
expenses. We deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs.
    For third country price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, 
where appropriate, for Canadian inland freight, air freight, Canadian 
import duties, Canadian brokerage and Colombian inland freight. In 
addition, we made deductions for credit and direct selling expenses in 
Canada. We also deducted the weighted-average Canadian and Colombian 
indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, inventory 
carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related party 
commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.

3. Grupo Tropicales

    For Grupo Tropicales, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices 
to unrelated customers in Argentina and Germany.
    For third country price to purchase price comparisons, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) 
and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments, 
where appropriate, for credit expenses. We deducted third country 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    For third country price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight. In addition, we made 
deductions for credit. We also deducted the weighted-average Argentine 
and German indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, 
inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the indirect selling 
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs.

Constructed Value

    For three of the 16 respondents, we calculated FMV based directly 
on CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, because these 
respondents did not have adequate sales in either the home market nor 
in any third country markets during the POI. These three companies 
were: Agrorosas S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A. and Rosex LTDA. We calculated 
CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of cultivation, plus general 
expenses, profit and U.S. packing. For general expenses, we used the 
greater of the reported general expenses or the statutory minimum of 
ten percent of the cost of cultivation. For profit, we used the greater 
of the weighted average third country profit during the POI or the 
statutory minimum of eight percent of the cost of cultivation and total 
SG&A expenses, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.50(a)(2).
    For these respondents, we based the amortization expense upon 
amounts normally recorded by each company in their usual record 
keeping. We rejected adjustments that companies made to the 
amortization expense solely for purposes of this investigation. We also 
made specific adjustments to respondents' CV data as described below:

1. Agrorosas S.A.

    For Agrorosas S.A., we did not consider the minor pre-verification 
correction filed on September 9, 1994 for the preliminary 
determination. This data will be fully analyzed for our final 
determination.

2. Flores Mocari S.A.

    For Flores Mocari S.A., we revised the calculation of interest 
expense to express the expense as a per-unit amount.

3. Rosex LTDA

    For Rosex LTDA, we also revised the calculation of interest expense 
to express the expense as a per unit amount.
    In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as 
described below:

1. Agrorosas S.A.

    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the 
weighted-average U.S. indirect selling expenses up to the amount of 
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2).

2. Flores Mocari S.A.

    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average U.S. 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, up to 
the amount of the greater of related party commissions or indirect 
selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b)(2).

3. Rosex LTDA

    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount 
of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 
19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

Currency Conversion

    Regarding transactions in third country currencies, we made 
currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect 
during the month of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.
    Because certified exchange rates for Colombia were unavailable from 
the Federal Reserve, we made currency conversions for expenses 
denominated in Colombian pesos based on the official monthly exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as published by the 
International Monetary Fund.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the 
information used in making our final determination.

Critical Circumstances

    In the petition, petitioner alleged that ``critical circumstances'' 
exist with respect to importation of roses. However, we did not 
initiate a critical circumstances investigation because, since roses 
are extremely perishable, it is not possible to accumulate an inventory 
of roses in order to evade a potential antidumping duty order. 
Therefore, we determined that an allegation that critical circumstances 
exist is without merit (See the September 12, 1994, concurrence 
memorandum).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of fresh cut 
roses from Colombia, as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit 
or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping 
margins, as shown below. The suspension of liquidation will remain in 
effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
              Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                   percent  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agrorosas..................................................         4.93
Grupo Papagayo (and its related farms Agricola Papagayo,                
 Inversiones Calypso S.A., Omni Flora Farms Inc., and Perci             
 S.A.).....................................................         8.02
Flores Mocari S.A. (and its related farms Cultivos                      
 Miramonte and Devor Colombia).............................        13.86
Grupo Sabana (and its related farms Flore de la Sabana S.A.             
 and Roselandia S.A.)......................................        34.35
Flores la Frangancia.......................................        27.60
Grupo Benilda (and its related farms Agricola La Maria                  
 S.A., Agricola La Celestina Ltda., and Agricola Benilda                
 Ltda.)....................................................        55.94
Grupo Clavecol (and its related farms Claveles Colombianos              
 Ltda., Sun Flowers Ltda., Fantasia Flowers Ltda., Splendid             
 Flowers Ltda.)............................................         4.58
Floramerica Group (and its related farms Floramerica S.A.               
 (Santa Lucia and Santa Barbara Farms), Jardines de                     
 Colombia Ltda., Flores Las Palmas Ltda., Cultivos del                  
 Caribe Ltda., Jardines del Valle Ltda., and Cultivos San               
 Nocolas Ltda.)............................................        10.55
Rosex (and its related farms Rosex Ltda. (La Esquina and                
 Paraiso Farms), Induflora Ltda., and Rosas Sausalito                   
 Ltda.)....................................................        13.96
Grupo Sagaro (and its related farms Flores Sagaro S.A. and              
 Las Flores S.A.)..........................................         5.26
Grupo Tropicales (and its related farms Rosas Colombianas               
 Ltda., Happy Candy Ltda., Mercedes Ltda., and Flores                   
 Tropicales Ltda.).........................................        50.96
Grupo Prisma (and its related farms Flores del Campo Ltda.,             
 Flores Prisma S.A., Flores Acuarela S.A., Flores el Pincel             
 S.A., Rosas del Colombia Ltda., Agropecuaria Cuernavaca                
 Ltda.)....................................................        55.94
Grupo Bojaca (and its related farms Agricola Bojaca Ltda.,              
 Universal Flowers, and Plantas y Flores Tropicales Ltda.               
 (Tropifora))..............................................        21.21
Andes Group (and its related farms Flores Horizonte,                    
 Cultivos Buenavista, Flores de los Andes, and Inversiones              
 Penasblancas).............................................        55.94
Caicedo Group (and its related farms Agrobosque, Productos              
 el Rosal S.A., Productos el Zorro S.A., Exportaciones                  
 Bochia S.A.--Flora Ltda., Flores del Cauca, Aranjuez S.A.,             
 Andalucia S.A., Inverfloral S.A., and Great America                    
 Bouquet)..................................................        29.60
Grupo Intercontinental (and its related farms Flora                     
 Intercontinental and Flores Aguablanca)...................        55.94
All Others.................................................       33.87 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine whether imports of the subject merchandise are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry, 
before the later of 120 days after the date of the preliminary 
determination or 45 days after our final determination.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than October 17, 1994, and 
rebuttal briefs no later than October 24, 1994. In accordance with 19 
CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to give 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on 
October 25, 1994, at 9:30 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Request should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentation will be limited 
to issues raised in the briefs.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(f)) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

    Dated: September 12, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-23195 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P