[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23504]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 22, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-614-801]

 

Fresh Kiwifruit From New Zealand; Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand. The review 
covers one exporter, the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board (NZKMB), 
and the period November 27, 1991, through May 31, 1993. Based on our 
analysis of the comments received, we determine the dumping margin for 
NZKMB to be 15.41 percent.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 22, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amer M. Kayani or Thomas F. Futtner, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
5346 or 482-3814, respectively.

Background

    On May 6, 1994, the Department published the preliminary results 
(59 FR 23691) of its administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand (57 FR 23203, (June 2, 
1992)). The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by the order under review is fresh kiwifruit. 
Processed kiwifruit, including fruit jams, jellies, pastes, purees, 
mineral waters, or juices made from or containing kiwifruit, are not 
covered under the scope of the order. The subject merchandise is 
currently classifiable under subheading 0810.90.20.60 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS number is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this review is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
results. At the request of respondent, NZKMB, we held a public hearing 
on June 20, 1994. We received timely comments from respondent and 
petitioners, the California Kiwifruit Commission (CKC).

General Comments

Comment 1

    Respondent argues that the Department should exclude from NZKMB's 
expenses amounts of interest it incurred to finance antidumping 
deposits in accordance with the Department's practice in the 
administrative review of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Order; 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, et. al. (58 FR 39729, (July 26, 1993)). Respondent 
further argues that the Department successfully verified the amount of 
interest NZKMB incurred as a result of the duty deposits.
    Petitioners contend that this interest is not ``dumping duty 
interest'', but rather that it is simply interest incurred by 
respondent on short-term commercial bank financing to finance kiwifruit 
business operations. Furthermore, petitioners contend that respondent's 
reliance on the third administrative review results in Antifriction 
Bearings is misplaced because in the more recent Antifriction Bearings 
fourth administrative review, the Department disallowed a reduction for 
U.S. indirect-selling expenses by the amount of interest incurred to 
finance antidumping duty deposits.

DOC Position

    We disagree with respondent. Respondent mischaracterized the 
Department's verification of this expense. The Department only verified 
the total interest expense for NZKMB. NZKMB did not provide any 
supporting documentation for specific interest on dumping deposits (see 
Department's verification report for NZKMB, dated April 16, 1994, pp. 
14-15). Given the Department's inability to verify the interest 
incurred for dumping deposits, there is no evidentiary basis for making 
the adjustment claimed by respondent. Therefore, the issue of the 
Department's practice in Antifriction Bearings is moot.

Comment 2

    Respondent argues that the general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses should be reduced by revenues from sales of salvaged 
packaging, which were posted to two accounts in NZKMB's general ledger. 
Respondent contends that the Department verified the items in one 
account and declined to examine the second account, citing lack of 
time. Furthermore, respondent claims that the Department traced the 
total amount in the second account to the general ledger and that the 
Department's unwillingness to go behind the ledger for this account is 
not sufficient grounds to doubt its accuracy.

DOC Position

    We disagree. The Department informed respondent, prior to 
verification, in a letter dated March 4, 1994, that ``it is the 
responsibility of the respondent to be fully prepared for the 
verification. If (respondent) is not prepared to support or explain a 
response item at the appropriate time, we will move on to another 
topic. Due to time constraints, it may not be possible to return to 
that item and we may consider the item unverified.'' Respondent did not 
bring its claim for the adjustments in question to the Department's 
attention prior to the start of verification. In fact, these 
adjustments were first brought to the Department's attention on the 
third day of a five-day verification. Due to respondent's considerable 
delay in bringing the information to the Department's attention and 
subsequent lack of preparation in providing the supporting 
documentation, the verification team was only able to verify fully the 
amount reported for tender revenue packaging. The Department was unable 
to verify fully the amount reported in the sundry on-shore packaging 
account because of respondent's inability to provide supporting 
documentation in a timely manner. Accordingly, no adjustment has been 
made to G&A for the sundry on-shore packaging in the final results.

Comment 3

    Respondent argues that the Department should add the delivery 
premium for sales in the United States to the U.S. price rather than 
deduct it from U.S. price. NZKMB asserts that it charges a delivery 
premium for sales in the United States made on a delivered basis. This 
amount is charged to the customer as a premium above the gross unit 
price. Thus, according to respondent, it should be added to the gross 
unit price to yield the actual price paid by the customer.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent that the delivery premium should not be 
subtracted from the gross price when calculating the net U.S. price and 
have added it to the gross unit price so that our calculations reflect 
the full price paid by the customer. We then have adjusted the U.S. 
price for actual movement expenses respondent incurred.

Comment 4

    Respondent contends that the Department incorrectly used a 
weighted-average price for the entire period of review (POR) in the 
calculation of foreign market value (FMV). Respondent argues that the 
Department should use monthly weighted-average prices in the 
calculation of FMV.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent and have used monthly weighted-average 
prices in the calculation of FMV for the final results.

Comment 5

    Respondent contends that the Department improperly treated interest 
expenses by including the growers' interest cost in the cost of 
manufacture (COM) rather than accounting for it as a general expense in 
accordance with the Department's practice. To remedy this alleged 
error, respondent suggests that the Department subtract the growers' 
interest from COM.
    Furthermore, respondent contends that, when calculating the 
constructed value (CV) interest expense, the Department double-counted 
the growers' interest by including it both in grower's COM and in CV 
interest expense calculation for NZKMB. According to respondent, the 
amount reported as CV interest expense in NZKMB's response to the 
Department's grower cost questionnaire, represents the total interest 
expense, for both NZKMB and the growers, that should be added to CV. 
Respondent suggests correcting this alleged error by subtracting the 
grower interest from COM and multiplying the result with CV offset 
proposed by NZKMB in its response to the Department's questionnaire.
    Petitioners contest respondent's claim that the growers' interest 
expense should not be included in the COM but rather should be 
accounted for as a general expense. Petitioners note that respondent's 
claim overlooks the distinction between NZKMB's and growers' costs. 
Petitioners point out that the interest expenses incurred by each 
grower are directly related to the kiwifruit operations for each grower 
and that the loans relate directly to individual growers' costs of 
cultivation and are not ``general'' in nature nor are they a general 
expense of NZKMB.
    Petitioners also dispute respondent's claim that the interest 
expense reported in NZKMB's response to the Department's grower cost 
questionnaire represents the total interest, for both NZKMB and the 
growers, that should be added to CV. According to petitioners, the 
amount for CV interest expense used by the Department is much less than 
the actual interest incurred by either the growers or NZKMB because of 
an offset of interest expense with interest income that was not related 
to the grower interest. Petitioners argue that the Department should 
not allow any offset to growers' interest expense. Instead, petitioners 
argue that any offset that the Department chooses to make should only 
be subtracted from the interest expense of NZKMB. Furthermore, 
petitioners maintain that this offset should be in the form of a whole 
number instead of an estimated ratio used by respondent in its 
response.

DOC Position

    We agree, in part, with both respondent and petitioners. We 
disagree with respondent's first argument that the growers' interest 
cost should be excluded from the COM. The Department's objective is to 
calculate the cost of production (COP) of the subject merchandise sold 
by NZKMB. This COP includes the cost incurred by the grower to produce 
the kiwifruit as well as the selling, general and administrative 
expenses (SG&A) incurred by NZKMB to sell the kiwifruit. The financial 
expenses incurred by growers are a part of the costs associated with 
producing the kiwifruit. That is, these financial expenses are directly 
related to individual growers' COM and are not NZKMB's general expense. 
NZKMB's financial expense is treated as the general expense of NZKMB 
and added to the grower's COM to arrive at the total COP of the 
kiwifruit.
    With respect to respondent's argument that the Department double-
counted growers' interest expenses, the Department agrees with 
respondent in part. We agree with respondent that the Department 
double-counted the growers' interest by including it both in grower's 
COM and in CV interest expense calculation for NZKMB. However, we 
disagree with the specific amount of the CV offset proposed by 
respondent. The CV offset proposed by respondent is a percentage factor 
that is applied to total interest of growers and NZKMB which was 
adjusted for deposits made for estimated antidumping duties. We have 
recalculated respondent's proposed adjustment by disallowing 
respondent's deduction for the interest incurred on its duty deposits. 
(For an explanation of the Department's position on this issue, see 
Comment 1.) Furthermore, we have allowed this offset only to NZKMB's 
financial expenses because, as noted above, the Department does not 
consider financial expenses incurred by growers to be a general expense 
of NZKMB.

Cost of Production Comments

Comment 6

    Respondent contends that the Department's treatment of orchard set-
up costs for growers who purchased already- established orchards and 
thus did not report actual orchard set-up costs has unfairly distorted 
and inflated costs. Respondent argues that the Department's decision to 
use the best information available (BIA) for these orchards set-up 
costs grossly exaggerates their value. Respondent maintains that a 
purchaser of an established orchard does not bear directly any set-up 
costs, since those costs were borne by the original establisher of the 
orchard. Respondent asserts that a purchaser's total cost for an 
orchard is the price the purchaser paid to the seller of the property 
and that a portion of that purchase price attributable to capital 
improvements is effectively the purchaser's set-up cost. That is, 
respondent contends, the difference in value between the raw land and 
the land with an established orchard represents the value to the 
purchaser of the set-up costs incurred by the original owner. Moreover, 
respondent points out that for most growers the Department has valued 
the set-up cost of the orchard at more than the price paid for the 
entire farm. Respondent notes that growers reported the actual 
amortized value of the orchard based on their purchase prices for the 
land and the orchard. Respondent contends that this reporting 
methodology was obtained from land valuation reports prepared by 
private appraisers and was not challenged by the Department in its 
supplemental questionnaire. Furthermore, respondent maintains that it 
is not clear what facts or information the Department believes were 
withheld by those growers who, in the Department's view, failed to 
provide actual set-up costs as those growers could not report 
``actual'' set-up costs given that they did not incur any such costs.
    Petitioners contest respondent's assertion that the Department 
ought to adopt a ``purchase price'' methodology for deriving the 
orchard set-up costs for growers who purchased already established 
orchards. Petitioners argue that the fact that a reasonable imputed 
set-up cost for some of these farms meets or exceeds their recent 
purchase price simply demonstrates that kiwifruit properties in New 
Zealand are depressed. Furthermore, petitioners maintain that the 
purchase price of these farms does not represent the costs of 
developing the kiwifruit operation. According to petitioners, 
respondent ignores the fact that set-up costs are allocated over the 
useful life of the orchard and that allocation of a purchase price 
established after the set-up period would understate actual set-up 
costs for a kiwifruit orchard by allowing allocation of a mere 
``remnant value'' to be substituted for the actual set-up costs. 
Petitioners agree with the Department's decision to apply BIA to 
reflect the set-up costs associated with kiwifruit production.

DOC Position

    For those growers who purchased already-established orchards in an 
arm's-length transaction, we agree with respondent that their ``set-
up'' cost is the portion of the price paid for the orchard that is 
attributable to ``capital improvements''. That is, the ``set-up'' costs 
for these orchards is the difference in value between the raw land and 
the land with an established orchard on it.
    When conducting the test for sales below the COP, we are concerned 
with the COP for the merchandise sold during the POR. The fact that the 
prevailing prices for kiwifruit orchards in New Zealand are depressed 
is irrelevant. What is relevant in our COP analysis are the costs 
incurred by growers to produce the fruit sold during the POR. 
Therefore, we agree with respondent that the price a grower paid for an 
orchard's ``capital improvements'' is effectively the equivalent of 
``set-up'' costs for growers who purchased already-established 
orchards. Accordingly, we have revised the ``set-up'' costs for 
Growers' 1, 3, 5, and 19 in these final results.

Comment 7

    Respondent argues that the Department's use of a 20-year 
amortization period for orchard set-up costs is entirely unsupported 
and that the Department should instead use a 35-year amortization 
period. Respondent cites excerpts from various studies conducted in New 
Zealand to support its claim that the useful life of kiwifruit orchards 
in New Zealand is at least 35 years. Furthermore, respondent asserts 
that the Department's staff refused to discuss this issue at 
verification and would not accept any offers to back up or otherwise 
verify the accuracy of the 35-year productive life. Respondent also 
asserts that the document relied on by the Department in the original 
investigation to support the 20-year productive life does not make the 
20-year estimate with conviction nor does it claim to be based on 
scientific study. Respondent maintains that the document was only a 
guess since it was based on commercial experience in California which 
at the time of writing in 1989 had just recently been established.
    Petitioners argue that respondent has not offered new support for a 
period longer than 20 years. According to petitioners, the possibility 
that the respondent was prepared to show the Department's verifiers a 
New Zealand vineyard older than 20 years is not dispositive of the 
issue because one, two, or even 20 farms with old vines cannot refute 
the fact that nearly every commercially producing kiwifruit vineyard in 
New Zealand and in other countries is less than 20 years old.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners. Generally accepted accounting principles 
(GAAP) call for the amortization and recovery of costs over the 
expected productive life of an asset. The estimated useful life of an 
asset is the period over which the asset may reasonably be expected to 
be useful to the individual's business or to the production of income. 
Some of the factors to be considered in determining this period are (1) 
wear and tear and decay or decline from natural causes, (2) economic 
changes and current developments within the industry or business, and 
(3) the climatic and other local conditions peculiar to the 
individual's business.
    The information submitted by respondent in support of useful vine 
life does not refute the Department's 20-year estimate in the 
preliminary results. The excerpts from studies cited by respondent do 
not provide any conclusive evidence in support of respondent's claim 
for a 35-year or longer productive life. In fact, a letter from the 
Horticultural and Food Research Institute of New Zealand, Ltd. (HORT), 
submitted by respondent, states that ``the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Fisheries (MAF) surveys indicate that before about 1970, there were 
insignificant plantings of kiwifruit--this means that in New Zealand 
there are very few plants more than 20-25 years old. * * *'' During 
verification in New Zealand, the Department discovered that, because of 
low profitability, some of the growers in the Department's sample had 
either pulled out or were contemplating pulling out their kiwifruit 
vines to use the land for other purposes. Furthermore, respondent's 
argument that it was prepared to show the Department's verifiers a New 
Zealand vineyard older than 20 years is not conclusive because the 
Department's objective is to measure an average useful life and not the 
useful life of one or two farms. Therefore, we maintain our position 
that the expected productive life of a kiwifruit orchard is 20 years.

Comment 8

    Respondent argues that the Department's methodology of allocating 
orchard costs to headlands and sidelands is flawed because the 
Department allocated headlands and sidelands only to kiwifruit crops, 
even though other fruit orchards also have associated headlands and 
sidelands. Respondent contends that the shelter-belt and sidelands are 
an integral part of all the orchard crops, not just of kiwifruit. 
Furthermore, respondent argues that the Department should not include 
headlands and sidelands in the allocation formula because the net area 
of the orchard is the area that is the focus of horticultural expenses. 
Although shelterbelts are occasionally trimmed and headlands and 
sidelands are mowed and sprayed for bugs, according to respondent, 
these costs are trivial. Respondent further contends that the 
Department's methodology of allocating costs to headlands and sidelands 
by using Grower 4 as an example is flawed because Grower 4's headlands 
and sidelands are only allocated to kiwifruit.
    Petitioners argue that headlands, sidelands, and windbreaks are not 
required for all fruit orchards. Petitioners note, however, that they 
are crucial for kiwifruit orchards because kiwifruit vines are much 
more sensitive to severe weather than are other crops. Furthermore, 
petitioners note that the support systems on which kiwifruit vines grow 
are also more sensitive to weather conditions than are other more 
deeply rooted orchard crops. According to petitioners, respondent is 
wrong to question the Department's use of Grower 4 as an example for 
allocation of costs to headlands and sidelands because respondent's 
submission did not provide any information about headlands or sidelands 
for Grower 4's passionfruit canopy and no support was forwarded that 
showed that headlands and sidelands were an integral part of the 
grower's passionfruit crop. Petitioners further contend that contrary 
to respondent's contention, aerial photographs submitted by respondents 
for Growers 10 and 17 do not show that crops other than kiwifruit crops 
require shelter belts. Petitioners additionally contend that 
respondent's attempt to demonstrate that the Department misallocated 
headlands and sidelands is inconclusive. For Grower 8, for example, 
petitioners argue that respondent admits in its own submission that the 
headlands and sidelands are devoted only to kiwifruit by attributing 
the extra area to the kiwifruit orchards. Finally, petitioners maintain 
that while the headlands and sidelands are not themselves productive, 
these areas are nonetheless integral to the successful growth and 
production of kiwifruit and are therefore appropriately accounted for 
in the cost of producing kiwifruit.

DOC Position

    We agree, in part, with both petitioners and respondent. Costs, 
such as fertilizer expenses, that are solely applicable to kiwifruit or 
to another crop's canopy area should be allocated on the basis of 
productive area only. However, by respondent's own admission, there are 
certain costs, such as trimming, mowing, spraying, etc., involved in 
the maintenance of shelterbelts, headlands, and sidelands. These costs 
should be allocated over the gross kiwifruit area. Accordingly, we have 
adjusted our COP calculations in the final results.
    With regard to respondent's comment that headlands and sidelands 
were allocated to kiwifruit only, the Department imputed the area for 
headlands and sidelands only for those growers for whom respondent did 
not provide the actual breakdown between the canopy and the gross area 
for various crops and where it was not clear from the record whether 
crops other than kiwifruit had shelterbelts, headlands, and sidelands 
around them. Therefore, no adjustment for orchard area has been made.

Comment 9

    Respondent argues that the Department distorted its calculation by 
completely excluding the pastoral portions of the land from orchard 
cost allocation because pastoral activities are an integral part of the 
growers' operations which must bear an appropriate share of management, 
repair, and vehicle expenses.
    Petitioners contend that pasture land should not bear expenses 
because it requires little tending or investment. Furthermore, 
petitioners note that pasture land requires virtually no management, 
while kiwifruit orchards require intensive management activities.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners in part. While pasture land requires 
little or no labor, it may require management and vehicle-related 
expenses. Accordingly, we have adjusted our COP calculations to reflect 
these costs in the final results. (See Department's analysis memorandum 
dated August 29, 1994, for appropriate adjustments.)

Comment 10

    Respondent argues that the Department's treatment of intra-family 
interest and salary and other related-party expenses in the preliminary 
results is inconsistent and in error. Respondent contends that it has 
been the Department's practice to treat transactions between related 
parties as unreliable and to examine costs to a company as a whole and 
eliminate intra-company payments and transfers. Respondent argues that 
the kiwifruit growers' accounting is typical of a small business in 
that it is essentially tax driven. In particular, respondent argues 
that recharacterizing grower profits as interest payments and inflated 
salaries paid to family members are typical methods used to cut taxes. 
Respondent cites Growers 5, 7, 17, and 19 as examples of this practice. 
Respondent uses Grower 17 for analysis purposes and argues that the 
wages paid by the grower to his spouse are a paper transaction only and 
that his spouse is not in fact a farm hand. Similarly, respondent 
argues that the loan from Grower 17's spouse to the grower was a paper 
transaction to reduce taxes in which the wife pretended to loan her 
husband money and the husband pretended to pay his wife interest. 
Respondent applies the same argument to salary payments made to the son 
of Grower 19 and asserts that this is a profit distribution among 
family members. Respondent further argues that, for Grower 8, the 
Department should exclude interest that the owners paid themselves from 
the COP calculation because it was a distribution of profits to the 
owners.
    Petitioners argue that respondent has furnished no evidence of New 
Zealand tax provisions to support its claim that the inflated payments 
are reported for tax purposes. Petitioners argue that the Department 
should not accept respondent's claim that some of the expenses are not 
real expenses when nothing in the record demonstrates this claim to be 
true.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners. Absent specific evidence to the 
contrary, we consider expenses recorded in a company's financial 
statements to reflect actual expenses incurred in its operations. See 
Final Results of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Sweaters Wholly or in 
Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From Taiwan, 55 FR 34585 (1990). 
Respondent has not presented any documentary evidence in support of its 
claim that the recorded expenses were not actual expenses. Accordingly, 
we continue to rely on the growers' financial statements for orchard 
expenses in the final results.

Comment 11

    Respondent argues that the Department incorrectly disallowed the 
rental income credit reported by Growers 8, 13, and 18. Respondent 
contends that these growers reported imputed rental income as a credit 
against their reported labor cost because each of these growers 
provided housing to their orchard employees. According to respondent, 
under New Zealand income tax law, employer-provided housing is 
considered a taxable benefit to the employee. As a result, the grower 
that provides housing is required, when submitting its tax information, 
to increase the reported salary paid in cash to the employee by the 
imputed value of the housing benefit. Respondent explains that, because 
of this calculation, the growers' income statement reflects a total 
labor cost that includes both the wages actually paid to employees, the 
imputed value of the housing benefit, and the growers' actual expenses 
incurred in providing employee housing. Respondent contends that this 
imputed housing value is not an additional expense to the grower. 
Respondent maintains that the Department misunderstood the nature of 
the housing expense and included both the imputed value of the housing 
benefit and the actual housing expenses incurred by the grower. 
Respondent argues that the Department erred in its COP calculations 
when it disallowed the offsetting credit amount reported in growers' 
financial statements to correct the employer's overstatement for 
employee housing expenses.
    Petitioners contend that the rental income credit is inappropriate 
because housing rental is not a farm operation.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent. In this case, the growers provide a 
housing benefit to employees. Under the New Zealand tax laws, this 
housing benefit is considered a taxable benefit to the employees and 
its imputed value is reflected on the employees' income statements 
along with total wages. Although the growers' income statements reflect 
a total labor cost that includes both the wages actually paid to 
employees and the imputed value of the housing benefit, the imputed 
housing value is not an additional expense to the growers; the actual 
cost of the housing benefit, such as depreciation, maintenance, 
electricity, etc., is already included in the growers' financial 
statements. Since the growers' financial statements show an expense for 
the imputed housing benefit that was not incurred, the growers offset 
this expense with ``rental income'' to reconcile their financial 
statements.
    To include the imputed housing value plus the growers' actual 
expenses incurred in providing the housing benefit in the COP 
calculation would result in double-counting the total expenses for the 
housing. Accordingly, we have accepted this ``rental income'' credit 
adjustment reported by respondent for Growers 8, 13, and 18 in the 
final results.

Comment 12

    Petitioners argue that, in its calculation of respondent's COP of 
kiwifruit sold in Japan, the Department failed to include: 1) NZKMB's 
G&A and interest expenses, 2) certain elements of third-country packing 
cost, which the Department included in the net prices compared to COP, 
and 3) the New Zealand coolstore cost.
    Respondent contests petitioners' position and maintains that the 
figures used by the Department include NZKMB's G&A and interest.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners that NZKMB's G&A and interest expenses 
should be included in the COP. However, these expenses are already 
included in the cost of production, therefore, we have made no further 
adjustment for these expenses in the final results.
    We agree with petitioners argument concerning inconsistencies 
regarding third-country packing cost in our COP analysis. Therefore, in 
the final results, we have excluded certain elements of third-country 
packing cost from the net prices for COP comparison purposes. Lastly, 
we agree with petitioners that the New Zealand coolstore cost should be 
included in the COP because these costs were included in net prices. 
Since this coolstore expense is a part of NZKMB's G&A expense, however, 
it is already a factor in our analysis. Therefore, we made no further 
adjustment for this expense in our COP analysis.

Comment 13

    Petitioners contend that the Department omitted NZKMB's G&A 
expenses from the CV calculation it used in exporter's sales price 
(ESP) comparisons. Petitioners note that the Department included these 
expenses in its CV calculations for purchase price (PP) comparisons.
    Respondent agrees with petitioners that NZKMB's G&A expenses should 
be included in CV calculations for the purposes of PP and ESP 
comparisons. Respondent, however, disagrees with petitioners about the 
amount that should be included because, according to respondents, the 
figure suggested by petitioners includes both G&A and interest 
expenses. Respondent urges the Department to use a figure in its CV 
calculations which reflects only G&A expenses.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners. Because of a clerical error, the 
Department did not add NZKMB's G&A expenses, including interest 
expense, in the preliminary CV calculation for ESP sales. We have 
corrected this clerical error in the final results.
    We disagree with respondent on the amount that should be included 
in NZKMB's G&A expenses for the reasons explained in our response to 
Comment 5.

Comment 14

    Petitioners argue that the methodology used by respondent to impute 
expenses grossly understated the labor costs. Respondent reported labor 
in three categories: ``labor'', ``imputed labor'', and ``contracted 
labor''. Petitioners allege that these disparate labor expense 
reporting practices resulted in a fractured, often unidentifiable, 
labor component. Petitioners request that the Department reject 
respondent's reported labor expenses and replace them with costs 
derived in a more logical fashion. Petitioners contend that actual 
kiwifruit labor costs should be determined from the responses for five 
growers only, based on the following factors: (1) the grower produced 
kiwifruit only, or the grower's kiwifruit labor costs are segregable; 
(2) the grower needed to impute no labor cost; (3) labor cost was not 
consolidated with materials; or (4) labor cost was easily identifiable. 
Petitioners argue that Growers 2, 7, 13, 14, and 20 satisfied the above 
conditions. Furthermore, petitioners assert that an analysis of these 
growers' labor cost shows that labor cost per hectare decreases as the 
area under cultivation increases. Thus, petitioners argue that the 
Department should impute labor costs according to the following 
``surrogate'' matches: Grower 13 as surrogate for Grower 12; Grower 7 
as surrogate for Growers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 
and 19. Petitioners argue that to calculate the imputed labor cost for 
these 15 growers, the Department should simply multiply the growers' 
kiwifruit canopy hectares by the per-hectare labor cost of the 
surrogate grower.
    Respondent argues that since the growers have reported their actual 
labor and contracted labor expenses and have added imputed labor 
expenses for family labor, there is no basis for adding additional 
labor costs to growers who relied more heavily on contracted labor.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent. For most growers, contracted labor 
expenses reported by respondent include labor and material costs. In 
instances where labor was not contracted for, the labor was provided 
either by an employee, by the owner himself, or by the owner's family. 
In the case of growers who used family labor, an imputed expense for 
family labor was reported and included in the COP. Additionally, for 
some growers labor costs were included in direct materials such as 
spraying and fertilizer. Therefore, we accepted respondent's labor cost 
allocation as an appropriate estimation of the cost of cultivating 
kiwifruit and used the information in our COP analysis.

Comment 15

    Petitioners argue that interest expenses should be allocated on the 
basis of cost of goods sold, rather than on the basis of assets, 
because respondent has not demonstrated linkage between the growers' 
assets and the interest incurred by the growers. Furthermore, 
petitioners contend that interest relates not to assets, but to the 
business operations of the orchards. According to petitioners, this is 
demonstrated by the fact that of the 20 growers, 11 were unprofitable 
in their kiwifruit operations during the POR, five were profitable on 
kiwifruit operations, and it was not possible to tell for the remaining 
four whether kiwifruit operations were profitable. Petitioners contend 
that based on these grounds, the interest incurred by these growers 
must be associated with financing the operations.
    Respondent claims that interest expenses should be allocated on the 
basis of asset value and not on the basis of cost of goods sold. 
Respondent argues that the Department has allocated interest on the 
basis of cost of sales in a typical proceeding involving a 
manufacturing company with multiple products because it has been 
assumed that each of the consolidated lines of business of a respondent 
have approximately equal operating asset requirements. Respondent 
asserts that where that assumption of equivalent assets is not true in 
a particular case, the Department uses asset-based allocation as was 
done in the antidumping investigations of Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the Republic Korea, 58 FR 
15467 (1993), and Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber 
from the Republic of Korea, 55 FR 32659 (1990). Respondent asserts that 
the growers in this review are in a factual situation similar to that 
in Man-Made Fiber Sweaters from Korea.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent but not for the reasons stated. During 
verification in New Zealand, the Department observed that many 
kiwifruit growers reside on their farms. In most cases, these growers' 
financial statements list their private residence as well as orchard-
related expenses together. However, during verification, the Department 
observed that the growers' private residences are not directly related 
to the cultivation of kiwifruit. Since a grower's residence does not 
generate a cost of sales, the allocation of interest on the basis of 
cost of sales would not accurately reflect the amount of interest 
attributable specifically to the residence of orchard operation. 
Therefore, we have accepted respondent's methodology of allocating 
interest expense on the basis of asset value, thus distinguishing 
between interest expenses attributable to the growers' residence and 
those attributable to their commercial activities. Accordingly, no 
adjustment for Growers' 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 has 
been made in the final results.

Comment 16

    Petitioners disagree with respondent's methodology of allocating 
G&A expenses for Growers' 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, 16, 17, and 20. Petitioners 
contend that, by using a cost of goods sold ratio based on the 
kiwifruit COM relative to all other costs, respondent has understated 
kiwifruit costs and has overstated the total orchard costs. 
Furthermore, petitioners argue that kiwifruit picking and packing 
expense should be included in the cost of goods sold. Petitioners urge 
the Department to recalculate growers' G&A expenses by adding the 
amount of picking and packing in the total cost of sales.
    Respondent argues that petitioners' proposal to reallocate G&A 
expenses by including packing in the COM is without merit. Respondent 
notes that it is the Department's practice to exclude packing from the 
COM for the allocation of G&A. Furthermore, respondent contends that it 
used unpacked COM to allocate among all orchard crops. Therefore, if 
the Department were to include the cost of packing for allocation 
purposes in the cost of kiwifruit only, but not for other crops, the 
results would be biased. Respondent argues that while the growers 
ultimately pay for packing, NZKMB administers the packing and 
distribution of kiwifruit from the time it leaves the orchard. 
Therefore, NZKMB is responsible for the packing process and NZKMB has 
included its G&A expenses in the COP figures for the kiwifruit.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners that respondent understated kiwifruit 
costs and overstated the total orchard costs by using a cost of goods 
sold ratio based on the kiwifruit COM relative to all other costs. 
Where growers had multiple crops, respondent allocated costs between 
kiwifruit and other crops. Since respondent used the unpacked COM to 
allocate costs among all orchard crops, inclusion of packing cost for 
allocation purposes in the cost of kiwifruit and not for other crops 
would prejudice the results. Therefore, we have accepted respondent's 
methodology in these final results.
    We agree with respondent that normally the Department does not 
consider packing expense as part of COM for the allocation of G&A. 
Therefore, we have accepted respondent's treatment of the packing 
expense.

Grower-Specific Comments

Grower 1

Comment 17

    Petitioners argue that fertilizing, pollination, pruning, shelter, 
labor, and other expenses for Grower 1 should be recalculated based on 
the Department's revised ratio of kiwifruit area to total area in the 
preliminary results. Petitioners further contend that the grower did 
not include all costs for spraying.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners in part. Because headlands, sidelands, 
and shelterbelts require regular pruning and maintenance, certain 
expenses such as pruning, shelter, and labor should be allocated on the 
basis of gross kiwifruit area. However, we disagree with petitioners 
about the allocation of fertilizer and pollination expenses. The 
fertilizer and pollination expenses are not applicable to headlands, 
sidelands, and shelterbelts, hence, we have allocated these expenses 
over the productive area only for the final results.
    With regard to the spraying costs, we agree with petitioners that 
the grower's financial statement does not support the deduction claimed 
by respondent. Accordingly, we have recalculated the spraying expense 
for this grower.

Comment 18

    Petitioners argue that the respondent miscalculated the 
depreciation expense because its starting point is not an actual 
depreciation but an amount adjusted for profits and losses on disposal 
of assets. Petitioners further contend that all depreciation related to 
kiwifruit reported in the partnership's financial statement also 
appears in the grower's assets. Therefore, petitioners argue that the 
full value of the depreciation of the assets should be dedicated to 
this grower because the assets are directly related to his property.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners in part. The Department normally uses 
actual depreciation expenses, exclusive of any gains or losses. 
Therefore, we have made adjustments to the reported depreciation amount 
in the final results to reflect the total depreciation this grower 
experienced.
    With regard to petitioners' second argument, we disagree that the 
full value of the partnership's depreciation expense should be 
dedicated to the current grower because it is not clear from the record 
that the current grower was the sole owner of the assets in question in 
the partnership. Therefore, we have not made adjustments to the 
partnership's depreciation expense in the final results.

Comment 19

    Petitioners argue that the fact that the ownership of the kiwifruit 
property changed during the POR and that the original property was 
split complicated the calculation so much that the reported labor does 
not provide supportable grounds for deriving this grower's labor 
expenses. Petitioners contend that the Department should compute this 
grower's labor cost based on the methodology suggested by petitioners 
in Comment 14.

DOC Position

    We disagree. Respondent's methodology of allocating costs based on 
land area is an acceptable methodology in this case. Without a more 
accurate alternative, we accepted respondent's labor cost allocation as 
an appropriate estimation of the cost of cultivating kiwifruit. 
Accordingly, we have accepted respondent's methodology for the final 
results.

Comment 20

    Petitioners argue that as a result of respondent's deduction of 
picking and packing expenses from the COM, the calculation of this 
grower's total cost of goods sold is erroneous. Furthermore, 
petitioners contend that the costs added by respondent for the value of 
animal stock sold, shearing wages, management, farm working expenses, 
repairs and maintenance, depreciation, rates (property taxes) and 
vehicle expense are in error because the value of animal stock sold as 
described in the grower's submission does not represent actual costs of 
producing the goat, deer and sheep stock sold. According to 
petitioners, respondent's inclusion of these values resulted in grossly 
overstated total costs. Petitioners assert that, if these values are 
included, the ``value'' of the kiwifruit plantation should also be 
included.
    Respondent argues that neither the value of the livestock retained, 
and not sold, nor the value of the orchard are included in the cost of 
sales it provided to the Department. Thus, respondent asserts that 
petitioners' argument that the value of the unsold orchard should be 
included in the allocation is without merit. Furthermore, respondent 
contends that petitioners' argument is factually unsound because U.S. 
GAAP governing the valuation of livestock held for sale specifies that 
the value of the livestock is the acquisition price, if any, plus the 
cost of feed and other costs of maintaining the livestock until sold. 
According to respondent, for tax reporting purposes in New Zealand, the 
principle is the same: the cost of sales is the cost of developing 
(i.e., raising) the livestock. Respondent further contends that each 
year the New Zealand Inland Revenue, the tax authority in New Zealand, 
publishes a schedule which specifies the expected cost of developing 
livestock. Respondent maintains that this schedule is specific with 
respect to breed, sex, and maturity, and that it is this value that 
respondent used in its response. Respondent argues that the Department 
normally accepts the accounting principles of the respondent's home 
country, and that in the case of this grower the accounting principle 
is the same as that used in the United States. Therefore, respondent 
argues that the Department should use the cost as reported by 
respondent in the allocation of G&A as it was based on New Zealand GAAP 
and reasonably reflects actual cost.

DOC Position

    With regard to the issue of picking and packing expenses in the 
COM, we disagree with petitioners. (See our position in response to 
Comment 16.)
    We disagree with petitioners' second comment that the value of 
animal stock sold by this grower does not represent the actual cost of 
producing the goat, deer, and sheep. The Department normally accepts 
the accounting principles of the respondent's home country, and in the 
case of this grower the accounting principle is not distortive. 
Therefore, we have accepted respondent's methodology in the allocation 
of G&A for this grower.

Comment 21

    Respondent contends that only productive hectares and not non-
producing hectares should be assigned orchard set-up costs.

DOC Position

    Since we have accepted respondent's methodology of allocating 
orchard set-up costs for the reasons explained above (see DOC position 
under Comment 6), respondent's comment in this instance is 
inconsequential.

Comment 22

    Respondent contends that pasture land must bear an appropriate 
share of management, repairs and vehicles expenses because it is an 
integral part of the orchard's operations.

DOC Position

    We agree that pasture land should bear a share of management, 
repairs and vehicles expenses. Accordingly, we have made adjustments 
for this grower's management, repairs and vehicle expenses in the final 
results.

Grower 2

Comment 23

    Respondent argues that the Department has no justification for 
relying on BIA for the COP expenses of Grower 2. Respondent claims that 
the Department should use the grower's submitted costs. Respondent 
alleges that, contrary to the Department's preliminary analysis, the 
grower did not own an additional orchard during the POR. Respondent 
further argues that Grower 2 reported all interest and management 
expenses in its questionnaire response to the Department.
    Petitioners argue that since respondent provided incomplete and 
inconsistent information for this grower, it is not possible to 
determine whether all expenses were reported.

DOC Position

    We disagree with respondent. In the Department's letter of December 
13, 1993, the Department clearly instructed the respondent to review 
the list of sampled growers and ``determine (1) whether any of these 
growers is related to another grower. * * *'' These instructions in no 
way restricted the reporting of related growers to those included in 
the sample and any related grower should have been reported. In 
addition, previously the Department, in its October 14, 1993, letter, 
stated that ``* * * it is important that you supply us with the 
information on growers which are related and, as such, should be 
treated as single entities.'' Moreover, the letter states that ``If you 
do not provide this information, we will assume that the growers 
identified in your October 6, 1993, submission are not related and 
treat them as separate entities when drawing our sample. However, if we 
treat these growers as separate entities and subsequently discover that 
our sample includes a farm that should have been consolidated, we may 
have to resort to the best information available as required by section 
776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in determining the cost 
for that particular farm for the purpose of establishing the costs of 
the grower.''
    At verification, the Department, in a random review of invoices for 
this grower, noted an invoice which was made out in the name of an 
orchard that had not been reported to the Department. The grower 
claimed at that time that the orchard listed on the invoice was the 
orchard that had been reported as sold. The Grower's records did not 
support this claim. The name of the sold orchard was not identified in 
the grower's response; only the MAF number was listed. Grower 2's 
records reviewed at verification showed the name of the orchard with 
the MAF number reported as sold; that name was different than the name 
listed on the invoice. By way of explanation, the grower claimed that 
the orchard operated under two different names, but offered no evidence 
to support that claim. Furthermore, our review of NZKMB records did not 
support the grower's claim. The NZKMB records for the orchard listed on 
the invoice showed Grower 2 as the owner and listed a different MAF 
number than the one reported by Grower 2 for the sold orchard. Thus, 
neither the grower's records nor the NZKMB records supported Grower 2's 
claim that the orchard listed on the invoice and the orchard sold are 
one and the same.
    Because the Department could not verify the Grower's claim, we 
concluded that the related orchard on the invoice was not reported to 
the Department. By failing to report all related orchards, the grower 
failed to report all relevant costs. Thus, we have maintained our 
application of BIA for Grower 2. In light of the Department's 
determination to use BIA regarding this grower, we need not address 
respondent's allegation regarding management and interest expenses.

Grower 3

Comment 24

    Petitioners assert that respondent reported an imputed labor cost 
for this grower rather than an actual labor cost. Petitioners argue 
that this imputed labor value is understated and should be recalculated 
based on the methodology they described in reference to comments on COP 
(Comment 14).

DOC Position

    We disagree. According to this grower's response, summer and winter 
pruning was performed by the owner who worked part-time on the orchard. 
Respondent computed the cost of pruning for the two sampled growers in 
the Bay of Plenty region who had contracted out for pruning and based 
on their cost imputed the cost of pruning for this grower. Without a 
more accurate alternative, we accepted respondent's methodology. 
Therefore, we have used respondent's figure for the final results.

Comment 25

    Petitioners note that the respondent reported an incorrect value 
for interest expense. Petitioners urge the Department to scrutinize 
respondent's figures and adjust the interest claim.

DOC Position

    In our preliminary results, we did not include respondent's value 
for the interest expense in our analysis. The Department only allows an 
offset of interest expenses by short-term interest income. Thus, no 
change in our calculations is necessary.

Grower 4

Comment 26

    Petitioners argue that this grower's allocations of certain direct 
and indirect costs to kiwifruit based on the ratio of kiwifruit canopy 
area to total cultivated area or on the percentage of kiwifruit revenue 
of the grower's total revenue are flawed. Furthermore, petitioners 
support the Department's decision to recalculate expenses based on the 
ratio of total kiwifruit area to total cultivated area in the 
preliminary results.
    Respondent argues that the Department allocated farm expenses among 
the grower's various crops incorrectly by allocating non-productive 
headlands and sidelands area only to kiwifruit, while ignoring the 
headlands and sidelands that surround the grower's passionfruit 
orchard.

DOC Position

    We agree, in part, with petitioners' argument regarding allocation 
of costs between canopy and non-productive areas. Costs, such as 
fertilizers, that are directly applicable to the canopy area only, 
should be allocated exclusively to productive areas (see our position 
under Comment 8). However, costs applicable both to canopy and non-
canopy areas should be allocated over the gross kiwifruit area. 
Accordingly, we have made an adjustment to the fertilizer expenses for 
this grower.
    Regarding respondent's argument that the Department ignored 
headlands and sidelands surrounding the passionfruit orchard, because 
the respondent did not provide an exact breakdown among headlands, 
sidelands, and shelterbelts for either kiwifruit or passionfruit, the 
Department decided to impute the area devoted to headlands, sidelands, 
and shelterbelts for cost allocation purposes. Furthermore, we could 
not firmly establish from this grower's response whether shelterbelts, 
headlands, and sidelands were also applicable to the passionfruit crop. 
Therefore, we imputed shelterbelts, headlands, and sidelands for 
kiwifruit only.

Comment 27

    Petitioners maintain that respondent allocated ``standing'' charges 
to kiwifruit on the basis of the ratio of kiwifruit expenses to all 
operating expenses. Petitioners argue that some of these operating 
expenses were for contracting which occurs off-farm and is not 
financing or mortgage intensive. Therefore, according to petitioners, 
the Department should recalculate set up costs for this grower by 
allocating all interest expenses to kiwifruit.

DOC Position

    We disagree. Respondent allocated interest charges to kiwifruit on 
the basis of the ratio of kiwifruit expenses to all operating expenses. 
There is no evidence on the record that indicates that all interest 
expense should be dedicated to kiwifruit. Therefore, we have used 
respondent's allocation in the final results.

Grower 5

Comment 28

    Petitioners argue that the Department should revise its allocation 
of shelter costs based on land area. According to petitioners, given 
that the area of shelter devoted to each crop is known, a more accurate 
approach would be to calculate kiwifruit shelter area as a percentage 
of total shelter area.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners. Since it was not possible to identify 
shelter costs for a specific crop or activity, we imputed the shelter 
cost attributable to kiwifruit based on land area. The methodology 
suggested by petitioners is not necessarily more accurate than the one 
used by the Department in the preliminary results. Therefore, we have 
not made any adjustments in the final results.

Comment 29

    Respondent argues that the Department should allocate orchard 
expenses using net canopy area. Furthermore, respondent argues that the 
pastoral portion of the farm should be included in the allocation of 
orchard expenses.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent regarding allocation of certain orchard 
expenses over net canopy area (see our response to Comment 8). However, 
we disagree with respondent regarding the allocation of all orchard 
expenses over the pastoral portion of the farm (see our position under 
Comment 9). Accordingly, we have adjusted certain orchard expenses for 
this grower.

Grower 6

Comment 30

    Petitioners argue that this grower's labor cost should be 
recomputed because the reported cost is imputed rather than actual.

DOC Position

    We disagree. In this case, certain farm functions were performed by 
the owner who worked part-time on the orchard. Respondent computed the 
imputed labor cost for this grower based on the prevailing wages for 
unionized farm workers in New Zealand. Without a more accurate 
alternative, we accepted respondent's methodology as an appropriate 
estimation of the labor cost. Accordingly, no adjustment has been made 
for the final results.

Grower 7

Comment 31

    Petitioners argue that this grower's actual labor costs should be 
used to reflect its own labor and as a surrogate for other growers' 
labor costs.

DOC Position

    We used this grower's actual labor costs, not imputed costs, in the 
preliminary results and in these final results.
    We disagree with petitioners concerning the use of this grower's 
labor costs as a surrogate for other growers. (See DOC position under 
Comment 14.)

Comment 32

    Petitioners maintain that this grower has two properties: one 
property developed by the grower and the other purchased from another 
party. For the purchased property, petitioners assert that the grower's 
calculation of set-up costs excluded the amount for improvements. 
Petitioners insist that the Department should recalculate the set-up 
costs by including the amount of improvements and re-amortize the 
orchard set-up costs over 20 years instead of 35 years.
    Respondent argues that all assets related to the orchard are 
recorded in the grower's fixed asset register and that the depreciation 
of these assets is already included in the COP submitted to the 
Department. Respondent further contends that the inclusion of the same 
assets in the orchard set-up costs would result in double counting of 
these assets.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners that the orchard set-up costs should be 
amortized over 20 years instead of 35 years. (See our position under 
Comment 7.) Accordingly, we have adjusted the orchard set-up costs for 
this grower.
    We disagree with petitioners regarding the inclusion of certain 
assets related to land improvement expenses in orchard set-up costs 
because the depreciation of these assets is already included in the 
COP. Therefore, we have accepted respondent's methodology for these 
final results.

Grower 8

Comment 33

    Petitioners contend that labor costs should be recalculated because 
this grower raised multiple crops and did not differentiate labor 
costs. According to petitioners, this grower's labor costs should be 
recalculated based on Grower 7's labor costs.

DOC Position

    We disagree. Respondent's methodology of allocating costs based on 
land area is an acceptable methodology in this case. Without a more 
accurate alternative, we accepted respondent's methodology as an 
appropriate estimation of the labor cost. Accordingly, we have used 
respondent's allocation for the final results.

Comment 34

    Respondent argues that the Department should allocate horticultural 
expenses on net orchard area and should not exclude pasture land from 
its calculation of orchard expenses.

DOC Position

    We agree, in part, with respondent regarding allocation of certain 
orchard expenses on orchard area which includes pasture land. (See our 
position under Comment 9.) Accordingly, we have adjusted certain 
orchard expenses for this grower in the final results. However, we 
disagree with respondent regarding the allocation of orchard expenses 
on net orchard area. (See our position under Comment 8.)

Grower 9

Comment 35

    Petitioners argue that this grower did not report rates for one of 
the properties which produced kiwifruit and contend that the Department 
should calculate rates for this property to ensure that all costs are 
included in the COP calculation.

DOC Position

    We disagree. This grower did not own the second property and simply 
purchased mature fruit in an arm's-length transaction. Rates and all 
other expenses associated with the cultivation of kiwifruit were 
accounted for in the price this grower paid for the mature fruit. Thus, 
this grower did not incur any expense related to rates. Accordingly, we 
have not added the rates expense for this grower in these final 
results.

Comment 36

    Petitioners argue that since the grower sold kiwifruit produced on 
two properties and for one property did not calculate orchard set-up 
costs, the Department should estimate an amount based on multiplying 
the orchard set-up cost for the first property by the ratio of the 
second property's canopy hectares to the first property's canopy 
hectares.
    Respondent contends that because the grower purchased mature fruit 
on the vine, the purchase price included all the costs of cultivation 
including labor, orchard set-up costs and property taxes.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners and respondent. In determining whether 
sales have been made at less than the COP, prices should not be 
substituted for some of the costs. Accordingly, we have disregarded the 
purchased kiwifruit's costs and the quantity from the COP analysis.

Grower 10

Comment 37

    Petitioners argue that this grower's allocation of costs based on 
land area usage does not reflect the division of farm expenses. 
Petitioners request that the Department reallocate the expenses on the 
basis of orchard revenue. Petitioners further argue that since this 
grower raised multiple crops and reported imputed labor costs, labor 
costs for this grower should be recalculated.

DOC Position

    We disagree. The Department verified this grower's costs in New 
Zealand and found the methodology of allocating costs based on land 
area to be appropriate. The methodology suggested by petitioners does 
not necessarily provide a more accurate estimate of orchard costs. 
Therefore, we have accepted this grower's allocation methodology.

Comment 38

    Petitioners argue that respondent deducted picking and packing 
expenses from total orchard working expenses. Furthermore, according to 
petitioners, respondent deducted the imputed labor and management costs 
when calculating the kiwifruit COM. Petitioners request that the 
Department recalculate the G&A expenses for this grower by adding 
packing and imputed labor expense in the calculation of ratio for G&A 
expenses.

DOC Position

    We agree, in part, with petitioners that respondent's methodology 
for calculating G&A expenses is inappropriate because it excludes the 
imputed labor expense. This imputed labor expense is a part of COM and 
should be included in the calculation of G&A ratio. Accordingly, we 
have made adjustment to this grower's G&A expense. However, we disagree 
with petitioners regarding the inclusion of packing expense. (See our 
position under Comment 16.)

Grower 11

Comment 39

    Petitioners maintain that this grower bought packed kiwifruit from 
another farm and resold it to NZKMB and that this grower included, in 
its cost information, payment it made to the owner of the other farm. 
Petitioners argue that this is a faulty methodology because it mixes 
costs and prices. Furthermore, petitioners contend that, in an 
investigation into whether sales have been made at prices below COP, 
price should not substituted for some of the costs. Petitioners insist 
that the Department remove the cost and the quantity of the purchased 
kiwifruit from the grower's COP.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners that in determining whether sales have 
been made at less than the COP, prices should not be substituted for 
some of the costs. Accordingly, we have disregarded the purchased 
kiwifruit's costs and the quantity from the COP analysis.

Comment 40

    Petitioners argue that this grower deducted a portion of contracted 
labor income from the reported imputed labor amount. Petitioners 
maintain that contracted labor income does not offset non-contracted 
labor for the grower's kiwifruit operation and, therefore, the 
Department should remove this offset from the calculation.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners that the grower's contracted labor income 
does not offset non-contracted labor for the grower's kiwifruit 
operation. The contracting income is unrelated to kiwifruit operations. 
We have made the appropriate adjustment to this grower's calculations 
for the final results.

Comment 41

    Petitioners argue that respondent's approach in calculating 
interest expense for this grower is questionable because it appears to 
be based on a subjective valuation of the assets. Petitioners argue 
that the interest expense should be recomputed to ensure that all 
interest related to kiwifruit is included in the COP.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners that, where possible, it is preferable to 
use actual cost in reporting expenses. This grower's financial 
statement shows the actual cost of assets. Therefore, it is appropriate 
to use the actual asset value to calculate the interest expense. We 
have revised the interest expense for this grower in the final results.

Grower 12

Comment 42

    Petitioners note that, although the Department's preliminary 
analysis memorandum discusses a recalculation of this grower's rates 
expense, the Department used in its calculations the expense as 
reported. Petitioners urge the Department to use the amount calculated 
in the preliminary analysis memorandum, since this figure more 
accurately captures the rates expense.

DOC Position

    Because respondent's figure understated the actual rates expense, 
we intended to recalculate this expense by allocating it over correct 
orchard area. For these final results, we have used our revised figure.

Comment 43

    Petitioners argue that since this grower raised orchids as well as 
kiwifruit, certain labor costs for this grower were included in direct 
materials and should be recalculated.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners that certain costs should be 
recalculated because the labor costs in question were included in 
direct materials. For the reasons explained in our response to Comment 
14, we have accepted respondent's classification of these expenses.

Grower 13

Comment 44

    Petitioners argue that the Department should reject respondent's 
deductions for rent received and sale of sundries from set-up costs.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners. For the reasons explained in response 
to Comment 11, we have accepted respondent's deduction for rent 
received from the orchard set-up costs.
    With regard to sundry income, the amount in question is 
inconsequential for our analysis. Therefore, we have not made an 
adjustment for this amount in these final results.

Grower 14

Comment 45

    Petitioners argue that the Department should reject the contracted 
labor income offset claimed in the labor expense category by this 
grower because respondent has not demonstrated that contracted income 
was derived from actual labor performed. In addition, petitioners argue 
that any adjustment should be limited to the actual labor performed. 
Petitioners also argue that the Department should reject respondent's 
adjustment to labor expense for contracting income. Petitioners 
maintain that the income should be adjusted for overhead and profit, 
or, alternatively, that the actual labor expense identifiable to the 
contracting income be deducted.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners in part. As a result of verification in 
New Zealand, the Department has determined that the contracted income 
was an appropriate offset against grower's labor costs because contract 
income included an element of labor cost which was also included in the 
grower's total labor costs. The disallowance of this offset would 
result in the inclusion of labor costs unrelated to this grower's 
production costs of its own kiwifruit crop. However, we agree with 
petitioners that the contracted labor income should be adjusted for 
overhead and profit. Accordingly, we have adjusted the labor expense 
for this grower in the final results.

Comment 46

    Petitioners argue that respondent improperly omitted an amount of 
interest expense. Petitioners maintain that this amount should be added 
to the interest calculated for the parent company.

DOC Position

    The interest amount in question was reported in the grower's 
supplemental response and we included it in the COP analysis for both 
the preliminary and final results.

Comment 47

    Petitioners argue that, since this grower did not report an expense 
for rates, the Department should calculate rates for this grower.
    Respondent argues that the grower leased the orchards at arm's 
length from unrelated parties and the lease payments constituted the 
entire compensation to the owner for the use of orchards.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent. The benchmark for determining costs in 
this case is the cost of growing kiwifruit to the current grower. This 
grower leased orchards from an unrelated party in an arm's-length 
transaction. Lease payment includes rates expense. Therefore, we have 
not added any additional rates expense in our calculations.

Comment 48

    Petitioners argue that this grower did not report any set-up costs 
and that respondent's claim that the leases for leased properties 
included set-up costs is unsupported. Petitioners contend that the 
Department should impute set-up costs for this grower.
    Respondent argues that the grower leased the orchards at arm's 
length from unrelated parties and that the lease payments constituted 
the entire compensation to the owner for the use of orchards.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent. This grower leased established orchards 
at arm's length from unrelated parties. The lease payments constituted 
the entire compensation to the owner for the use of orchards. Thus, the 
lease payment effectively reflects the lessor's portion of orchard set-
up costs. Accordingly, we have accepted respondent's claim regarding 
set-up costs.

Comment 49

    Petitioners argue that respondent understated the G&A expenses for 
this grower. Petitioners request that the Department recalculate the 
G&A expense for this grower.

DOC Position

    We disagree. First, the Department verified this grower's cost in 
New Zealand and made certain adjustments to its G&A expenses for the 
preliminary results. Second, petitioners have not explained why 
respondent's reported G&A expense is not accurate. No additional 
adjustment is warranted.

Grower 15

Comment 50

    Petitioners argue that certain direct and indirect expenses for 
this grower should be recalculated because most expenses were 
classified as common and allocated to kiwifruit or cattle/other on the 
basis of land area. Petitioners further assert that the allocation to 
cattle/other is unreasonable because the kiwifruit vines were not cut 
down and the cattle were not introduced until after the harvest, which 
occurred two to three months after the end of the period covered by the 
financial statement.
    In addition, petitioners argue that insurance costs should be 
expensed as of the time incurred since the future financial statements 
are not likely to show any liability for this cost.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners. Respondent's methodology of 
allocating costs based on land area is an acceptable methodology in 
this case. Although cattle were not fully introduced into the grower's 
operations before the kiwifruit harvest, nevertheless, the grower 
incurred development costs during the POR that were related to the 
establishment of the new cattle operations. Therefore, we accepted 
respondent's cost allocation as an appropriate estimation of the cost 
of cultivating kiwifruit. Accordingly, we have not adjusted 
respondent's figure for the final results.
    With regard to petitioners' argument concerning the insurance 
premium, we disagree with petitioners because GAAP in New Zealand 
allows entities to amortize the value of insurance premiums for loans 
over the life of loan. Accordingly, we have not adjusted respondent's 
costs for insurance premiums in the final results.

Comment 51

    Petitioners argue that the allocation of interest expense on the 
basis of land area is not reasonable for this grower because it 
understates the interest expense applicable to kiwifruit. Petitioners 
contend that this expense should be recalculated.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners. Respondent's methodology of 
allocating interest based on land area is reasonable because it 
attempts to approximate actual expense in terms of the relative 
resources devoted to the kiwifruit in relation to other activities on 
the farm. Therefore, we have accepted respondent's allocation of 
interest expenses.

Grower 16

Comment 52

    Petitioners argue that the Department's preliminary analysis 
memorandum suggests that the Department intended to recalculate the 
``other'' category of expense for this grower. Petitioners urge the 
Department to recalculate the ``other'' expense for the final results.

DOC Position

    Because respondent's figure understated its actual ``other'' 
expense category, we intended to reallocate this expense by orchard 
area. For these final results, we have used the revised figure.

Comment 53

    Petitioners argue that the Department should recalculate labor cost 
for this grower because the grower raised multiple crops and reported 
imputed, rather than actual, labor cost.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners. Respondent's methodology of 
allocating costs is an acceptable methodology in this case. Respondent 
reported direct-labor costs other than owner labor based on his 
financial statements. Without a more accurate alternative, we accepted 
respondent's cost allocation as an appropriate estimation of the cost 
of cultivating kiwifruit. Accordingly, no adjustment has been made to 
respondent's information for the final results.

Comment 54

    Respondent argues that the Department should reallocate 
horticultural costs based on net orchard area because the Department 
failed to account for the headlands and sidelands of other orchard 
crops.

DOC Position

    We disagree. Since respondent did not provide an exact breakdown 
between canopy, shelterbelts, headlands, sidelands, pasture, and 
residential area, the Department imputed the land area devoted to 
headlands, sidelands, and shelterbelts. In addition, this grower's 
response to the Department's questionnaire indicated that the pasture 
area was leased to another party. Headlands, sidelands, and 
shelterbelts are crucial to growing kiwifruit. However, respondent did 
not put forward any support that demonstrated that headlands, 
sidelands, and shelterbelts are an integral part of this grower's other 
crops. Without any contrary evidence on the record, the Department 
could only conclude that the land area for headlands, sidelands, and 
shelterbelts applies solely to kiwifruit production.

Grower 17

Comment 55

    Petitioners argue that the Department should incorporate into its 
COP analysis the cost of the spray expense that the grower sold to a 
third party because the grower failed to provide an invoice for it at 
verification. Furthermore, petitioners contend that there is no 
indication that the sale price for the spray was the same as the 
grower's purchase price for the spray. Petitioners argue that if the 
resale price of the spray was higher, the Department should ensure that 
the actual costs are not distorted by a profit the grower may have made 
on the sale.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners. The Department verified this grower's 
costs, including spray costs, in New Zealand by tracing it from the 
original invoice to the grower's bank account. We have found them to 
reflect the actual costs of producing kiwifruit. Accordingly, no 
adjustment to the grower's costs for the spray expense has been made in 
the final results.
    With respect to petitioners argument regarding the resale price of 
the spray, the Department has made no adjustment for potential profits. 
The total cost of the spray and the total amount of revenue received by 
respondent for the resold spray was verified by the Department. The 
Department was able to determine that potential profit incurred on the 
resale of the spray would have no significant impact on the dumping 
margin. Thus, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 353.59, we have disregarded this 
insignificant adjustment.

Comment 56

    Petitioners contend that since this grower raised apples as well as 
kiwifruit, the Department should disregard respondent's allocation and 
recompute an imputed labor cost for the grower's labor.

DOC Position

    We disagree. Respondent's methodology of allocating costs based on 
orchard land area is an acceptable methodology in this case. Without a 
more accurate alternative, we accepted respondent's cost allocation as 
an appropriate estimation of the cost of cultivating kiwifruit and have 
used it in these final results.

Comment 57

    Respondent argues that the Department should allocate horticultural 
costs based on net orchard area because this grower's other crops have 
headlands, sidelands, and shelterbelts around them.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent in part. In the case of this particular 
grower, apple and kiwifruit crops were planted together and the 
Department verified that both crops were surrounded by headlands, 
sidelands, and shelterbelts. Although the Department recognizes that 
shelterbelts are not crucial to the apple trees, since both crops were 
planted side-by-side, we have revised some of this grower's costs and 
allocated them on the basis of net area only in the final results.

Comment 58

    Respondent contends that the Department should not allocate to 
kiwifruit the entire depreciation cost of the jeep because it is a 
luxury vehicle used as the family car and not in the orchard business.

DOC Position

    We disagree with respondent because the depreciation expense for 
the jeep was fully allotted to the orchard in the grower's financial 
statement. Absent specific evidence to the contrary, we consider 
expenses recorded in a company's financial statements to reflect actual 
expenses incurred in its operations. See Final Results of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber 
From Taiwan, 55 FR 34585 (1990). Respondent has not presented any 
documentary evidence in support of its claim that the depreciation 
expense was not an actual expense. Accordingly, we continue to rely on 
the grower's financial statement for orchard expenses in the final 
results.

Comment 59

    Respondent argues that the Department improperly denied a credit to 
COP for packaging sold by the grower and contends that it is 
appropriate for the Department to allow such a packaging credit.

DOC Position

    We disagree with respondent. The credit in question was granted by 
the packhouse for kiwifruit packaging specifically to be used in future 
years. However, since the grower is no longer in the kiwifruit 
business, he would not be able to use this credit for kiwifruit 
packaging. Accordingly, we have not allowed for such a credit in our 
COP analysis.

Grower 18

Comment 60

    Petitioners argue that, since this grower raised apples as well as 
kiwifruit, its labor cost should be recomputed to reflect actual costs 
of growing kiwifruit.

DOC Position

    We disagree. Respondent reported direct labor as recorded in the 
grower's financial statement and the Department reviewed this grower's 
financial statements in New Zealand. The Department found the 
methodology of allocating labor costs for this grower to be reasonable. 
Without a more accurate alternative, we accepted respondent's cost 
allocation as an appropriate estimation of the cost of cultivating 
kiwifruit. Accordingly, we have used respondent's allocation for the 
final results.

Comment 61

    Petitioners argue that since the grower did not report rates, the 
Department should calculate rates for this grower.

DOC Position

    We disagree with petitioners. We verified this grower's expenses in 
New Zealand. This grower did not incur an expense for rates during the 
POR. Therefore, we did not include such an expense for this grower in 
our COP calculation.

Comment 62

    Respondent contends that the Department should allocate 
horticultural costs based on net orchard area because, along with 
kiwifruit, this grower's other crop was also surrounded by headlands, 
sidelands, and shelterbelts. In addition, respondent asserts that the 
Department should include only those costs in the COP analysis that 
were incurred by the current grower during the POR.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent in part. In the case of this particular 
grower, apple and kiwifruit crops were planted side-by-side and the 
Department verified that both apples and kiwifruit crops were 
surrounded by headlands, sidelands, and shelterbelts. Although the 
Department recognizes that shelterbelts are not crucial to the apple 
trees, since both crops were surrounded by shelterbelts, we have 
revised certain costs and allocated them over net area only.
    With regard to respondent's second argument, we agree with 
respondent that the benchmark for determining costs in this case is the 
cost of growing kiwifruit to the current owner. Therefore, we have 
excluded costs outside the POR from the COP calculations for this 
grower.

Grower 20

Comment 63

    Petitioners assert that this grower has omitted repacking and 
interest expenses from its cost calculation. Furthermore, petitioners 
contend that gains on the sale of fixed assets in G&A expenses should 
be excluded. According to petitioners, since respondent claimed that 
coolstore costs were incurred by NZKMB, rebates from coolstore should 
not be deducted from packing costs.
    Respondent maintains that all repacking costs have been included in 
NZKMB's cost response because NZKMB is responsible for these costs and 
reimburses the growers for any repacking expenses. Furthermore, 
respondent argues that interest expense was allocated on a consolidated 
financial statement basis which includes all debt, both corporate and 
for the orchard. According to respondent, gains on sales of assets are 
a legitimate inclusion in the G&A expense, and the coolstore rebate is 
a reduction in the packing cost paid to the packhouse/coolstore and 
should be included in COP calculation.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent that COP is allocated only to fruit sold. 
Thus, all costs have been properly allocated. Since NZKMB is 
responsible for repacking costs and reimburses the growers for these 
expenses, all repackaging costs have already been included in NZKMB's 
response. Respondent reported the grower's interest expense on a 
consolidated financial statement basis which includes corporate and 
orchard interest.
    We agree with respondent that gains on sales of assets are a proper 
inclusion in the G&A expense and that the coolstore rebate is a 
reduction in the packing cost paid to the packhouse/coolstore and, 
therefore, is properly included in the COP.

Other Comments

Comment 64

    Respondent contends that the Department failed to adjust NZKMB's 
interest expenses by the amount of interest NZKMB earned on short-term 
deposits. Respondent asserts that the Department normally permits an 
offset of interest expenses by short-term interest income, citing the 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Calcium Aluminate 
Cement, Cement Clinker and Flux from France (59 FR 14136, March 25, 
1994).

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent. Because of a clerical error the 
Department inadvertently did not adjust respondent's interest expenses 
by the amount of short-term interest income. We have corrected this 
clerical error for these final results.

Comment 65

    Respondent contends that due to a clerical error in the computer 
program, the Department's model match exercise did not result in the 
most similar matches for the U.S. sales. Respondent urges the 
Department to ensure that comparisons are made on the most similar 
products.

DOC Position

    We agree. Upon reviewing the computer program we found an error 
that did not allow for the most similar products to be compared to the 
U.S. merchandise. We have corrected the computer program for the final 
results.

Comment 66

    Respondent argues that the Department failed to subtract the 
quantity adjustment amount from the quantity and that this manipulation 
is required to yield the actual quantity sold. Respondent urges the 
Department to correct this clerical error.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent and have made the appropriate adjustments 
in the final results.

Comment 67

    Petitioners argue that the Department should deduct U.S. repacking 
expenses in the calculation of ESP because repacking expenses represent 
costs for an operation performed in the United States and not an export 
packing expense.

DOC Position

    We agree. We have made the appropriate adjustment in the final 
results.

Comment 68

    Petitioners argue that the Department incorrectly entered a 
customer code in its computer program and urge the Department to 
correct this error. Furthermore, petitioners contend that the 
Department should add that particular customer's expense category to 
the movement expenses.

DOC Position

    We agree with petitioners that an incorrect instruction in the 
computer program resulted in a erroneous customer code and did not add 
this customer's expense category to the movement expenses. We have 
corrected this clerical error in the final results.

Comment 69

    Petitioners argue that in calculating PP, the Department treated 
certain expenses as indirect expenses. Petitioners assert that, as 
presented by NZKMB, these costs are direct expenses and, therefore, 
should be treated as such.

DOC Position

    We agree. We have treated these expenses as direct expenses in the 
final results.

Comment 70

    Petitioners argue that the Department incorrectly calculated U.S. 
packing expense by excluding labelling and tagging expenses in its 
sale-to-sale comparisons. Petitioners urge the Department to correct 
this clerical error by adding labelling and tagging expense to export 
packing.

DOC Position

    We agree. Accordingly, we have made the appropriate adjustments in 
the final results.

Comment 71

    Respondent argues that in calculating CV, the Department 
inadvertently double-counted packing costs by using the packing-
inclusive cost of cultivation and then adding the packing costs again 
to the CV.
    Petitioners assert that the Department did not use the actual 
packing cost in its calculations.

DOC Position

    We agree with both petitioners and respondent. Upon reviewing our 
calculations, we found that we had inadvertently double-counted packing 
costs and did not use the actual packing costs. We have revised our 
calculations to reflect these adjustments in the final results.

Comment 72

    Respondent argues that the Department improperly deducted credit 
expenses in calculating the net home market price to be compared to the 
COP. Additionally, respondent contends that the Department improperly 
included inventory carrying costs in the calculation of COP. To support 
its argument, respondent cites Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from 
Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review (58 FR 48826, 48831, 
September 20, 1993), in which the Department did not take into account 
imputed credit expense and inventory carrying costs when testing sales 
below the COP.

DOC Position

    Upon reviewing our calculations, we found that we had inadvertently 
deducted credit expenses in calculating the net price to be compared to 
COP. We also inadvertently included inventory carrying costs in 
calculating the COP. We have corrected our calculations for the final 
results.

Comment 73

    Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently double- counted 
pallet tagging and labelling expenses in the CV margin calculation by 
including these expenses twice in its calculations.

DOC Position

    We agree. We have corrected our calculations for the final results.

Comment 74

    Respondent argues that in testing whether sales were made below 
cost, the Department inadvertently used a one-month threshold, although 
the preliminary results indicated a threshold of ``more than two 
months.'' According to respondent, the Department's practice in 
administrative reviews is to use a period of time greater than two 
months in implementing 19 CFR 353.51(a)(1), which allows the Department 
to disregard sales below cost in the calculation of FMV only if they 
are made ``over an extended period'' of time.

DOC Position

    We inadvertently relied on a one-month threshold of sales below 
cost instead of a ``more than two month'' threshold in our preliminary 
COP analysis. We have corrected our calculations in the final results.

Comment 75

    Petitioners argue that, in its CV calculations, the Department used 
a flawed formula for determining whether actual SG&A or the 10 percent 
of COM statutory minimum be used.

DOC Position

    We agree. We have corrected this clerical error in the final 
results.

Final Results of Review

    Upon review of comments submitted, the Department has determined 
that the following margin exists for the period November 27, 1991, 
through May 31, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board......................        15.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and FMV 
may vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly to the 
U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of 
these final results of administrative review, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed firm will be 15.41%; and (2) the cash deposit rate for 
merchandise exported by all other manufacturers and exporters who are 
not covered by this review will be the ``all others'' rate of 98.60 
percent established in the less-than-fair-value investigation; in 
accordance with the Department practice. See Floral Trade Council v. 
United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal Mogul Corporation, 
822 F.Supp. 782 (1993).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as the 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 a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: September 16, 1994.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-23504 Filed 9-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P