[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2734-2738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-687]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-549-813]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit 
From Thailand

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Frederick or John Brinkmann, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0186 or 482-5288, respectively.

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: We preliminarily determine that canned 
pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand is being, or is likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 
733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act'')(1994). The 
estimated margins of sales at less than fair value are shown in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on June 28, 1994 (59 FR 
34408), the following events have occurred.
    On July 25, 1994, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination in 
this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-706).
    On August 3, 1994, we named the following four companies as the 
respondents in this investigation: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole 
Packaged Foods Company, and Dole Thailand, Ltd. (collectively 
``Dole''); The Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (``TIPCO''); Siam Agro 
Industry Pineapple and Others Co., Ltd. (``SAICO''); and Malee Sampran 
Factory Public Co., Ltd. (``Malee''). These four companies accounted 
for at least 60 percent of the exports of CPF to the United States 
during the period of investigation (POI) (January through June 1994) 
(see Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, dated August 3, 
1994). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.42(b)(1994), we issued 
antidumping duty questionnaires to the four companies on August 5, 
1994.
    Section A of the Department's questionnaire requesting general 
information concerning the company's corporate structure and business 
practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the 
sales of the merchandise in all markets was received from the four 
respondents on September 2, 1994. We analyzed each respondent's home 
market and third country sales of the subject merchandise in accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.48(a)(1994), and determined that the home market was 
not viable for any of the respondents. Germany was selected as the 
appropriate third country market for all respondents in accordance with 
19 CFR 353.49(b)(1994).
    On August 10, 1994, Dole requested that the POI be modified to 
coincide with its fiscal half-year accounting period. We accepted 
Dole's proposal on August 18, 1994, and modified the POI for Dole to 
cover that period from January 2, 1994, through June 18, 1994 (see 
Memorandum from Gary Taverman to Barbara R. Stafford, dated August 18, 
1994). The POI was not modified for the other three respondents.
    On August 10 and 24, 1994, Dole claimed that for purposes of 
reporting U.S. sales, it was impossible for the company to distinguish 
between its pineapple grown and canned in Thailand and its pineapple 
grown and canned in the Philippines. Therefore, Dole requested that it 
be allowed to report all of its U.S. sales of CPF, including those of 
Philippine origin, for each product category. Dole then proposed that 
an allocation ratio based on 1993 shipments to the United States be 
applied to determine the share of Thai-origin CPF sold during the POI. 
By doing so, Dole stated the Department could calculate a less than 
fair value margin for Dole's U.S. sales of Thai-origin merchandise 
during the POI based on a ratio of Thai origin to Thai and Philippine 
origin merchandise.
    In addition, Dole requested that it be allowed to exclude all sales 
of 5.5 ounce cans of crushed pineapple which accounted for an 
insignificant volume of its U.S. sales. Dole claimed that this product 
is a unique product which is

[[Page 2735]]

not produced by any other canned pineapple producer in the world nor 
sold by Dole in any other markets. On September 6, 1994, we granted 
Dole's requests concerning the reporting of its U.S. sales, but 
reserved our decision on the appropriate methodology for calculating a 
less than fair value margin for Dole's Thai-origin merchandise until we 
had an opportunity to review further its submissions (see Memorandum 
from Gary Taverman to Richard W. Moreland, dated September 6, 1994).
    Sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire which request 
home-market sales listings and U.S. sales listings, respectively, were 
received from Dole, TIPCO, and SAICO on September 20, 1994. Malee's 
Section B and C responses were received on September 22, 1994.
    Supplemental questionnaires regarding Sections A, B and C of the 
Department's questionnaire were issued to Dole on October 14, 1994, and 
to TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee on October 18, 1994.
    On October 21, 1994, we received a timely request from Maui 
Pineapple Company, Ltd. and the International Longshoremen's and 
Warehousemen's Union (the petitioners) to postpone the preliminary 
determination until no later than 210 days after the date of the filing 
of the petition in this investigation, pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.15(c)(1994). On October 26, 1994, finding no compelling reason to 
deny the request, we granted this request and postponed this final 
determination until January 4, 1995 (59 FR 54546, November 1, 1994).
    Dole submitted supplemental responses to Sections A, B and C of the 
questionnaire on November 4, and December 21, 1994. Supplemental 
responses from TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee were submitted on November 8, 
1994.
    On November 21 and 23, 1994, respondents TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee 
requested that the Department confirm their selection of invoice date 
as the proper date of sale for all reported sales. We issued a decision 
on this issue on November 29, 1994 (see Memorandum from Richard W. 
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford, dated November 29, 1994). 
Subsequently, on December 8, 1994, the Department modified this 
decision (see memoranda to file dated December 5, December 7, and 
December 8, 1994), and granted respondents' request to use invoice date 
as the date of sale for all reported sales. This issue is discussed 
further in the ``Date of Sale'' section below.

Cost of Production Allegation

    On September 29, 1994, the petitioners alleged that TIPCO, SAICO, 
and Malee sold the subject merchandise in Germany during the POI at 
prices below the cost of production (COP). The petitioners filed a 
similar allegation against Dole on September 30, 1994.
    Based upon our analysis of these allegations, we found that there 
are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TIPCO, SAICO, Malee, 
and Dole sold CPF in Germany at prices which were below the COP. 
Accordingly, on October 21, 1994, we initiated COP investigations 
against these four respondents pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act 
(1994) (see Memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford, 
dated October 21, 1994).
    Section D of the Department's questionnaire requesting cost of 
production and constructed value data was issued to the four 
respondents on November 7, 1994. Dole's Section D response was received 
on December 19, 1994. Section D responses from TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee 
were received on December 27, 1994. Because this information was 
received too late to be considered for purposes of the preliminary 
determination, we will analyze this data and use it in the final 
determination to determine whether any of the respondents made third 
country sales at prices below the COP.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act (1994), Dole requested 
on January 4, 1995, that in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the date of 
publication of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.20(b) (1994), because our preliminary 
determination is affirmative and Dole is a significant producer of CPF, 
and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the date 
of the final determination until the 135th day after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is canned pineapple fruit 
(CPF). For the purposes of this investigation, CPF is defined as 
pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, 
including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that 
is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar 
syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 
2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-
based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar 
(i.e., juice-packed). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    As stated above, the POI is January 1, through June 30, 1994, for 
TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee; and January 2, through June 18, 1994, for Dole 
(see ``Case History'' section above).

Such or Similar Comparisons

    We determined that all products covered by this investigation 
constitute a single category of such or similar merchandise. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third country 
market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise 
comparisons on the basis of the criteria defined in Appendix V to the 
antidumping questionnaire, on file in Room B-099 of the main building 
of the Department of Commerce.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.58(1994), we made comparisons at the 
same level of trade, where possible. Where we were not able to match 
sales at the same level of trade, we made comparisons without regard to 
the level of trade.
    Dole stated that its various customers categories (i.e., retail, 
foodservice and industrial) constituted three separate levels of trade. 
However, based on information contained in its response, we 
preliminarily determine that Dole sold CPF to two distinct levels of 
trade in both the U.S. and German markets. The first level is comprised 
of sales to customers in the retail and foodservice sectors (Level I); 
the second is comprised of sales to customers in the industrial sector 
(Level II).
    We have reached this conclusion based on the reported functional 
differences of Dole's customers. See Import Administration Policy 
Bulletin 92/1 dated July 29, 1992. Level I customers can be 
characterized as large national and regional chains which resell CPF to 
local or independent retail stores or food service outlets. Level II 
customers can be characterized as companies that use CPF as an 
ingredient in the production of other food products.

[[Page 2736]]

Date of Sale

    TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee requested that the Department determine 
whether their proposed date of sale methodology (i.e., invoice date) 
was appropriate based on information contained in their respective 
questionnaire responses. After an analysis of this information, 
additional data presented by the respondents concerning this issue, as 
well as the arguments raised by the petitioners, we instructed TIPCO, 
SAICO, and Malee to report the original order date as the date of sale 
unless there was a change to the essential terms of sale (i.e., price 
and/or quantity) prior to the date of invoicing. For those sales where 
there was a modification to the price and/or quantity, we asked these 
respondents to report the invoice date as the date of sale. The invoice 
date was selected, rather than the actual date of the modification, in 
order to reduce the administrative burden claimed by respondents in 
obtaining the actual order modification date.
    In response to the Department's instructions, respondents have 
argued that both the buyer and seller do not consider the terms to be 
fixed until the date of shipment and that the Department should accept 
the date of invoice as the date of sale for all sales. The 
questionnaire responses, which indicate that the contracts or initial 
agreements do not establish that the terms are binding and that either 
party can change the order at any time up to the invoice date, support 
this assertion.
    The Department considers the date of sale to be the date upon which 
all material terms of the contract for sale are set, especially price 
and quantity (see General Electric Co. versus United States, Slip Op. 
93-55 at 4 (CIT, April 21, 1993); Toho Titanium Co. versus United 
States, 743 F. Supp. 888, 890 (CIT 1990)). Our review of the record in 
light of the arguments subsequently presented by the respondents 
indicates that the material terms of any order can be changed prior to 
the invoice date. Further, we note that, for a significant number of 
sales during the POI, price or quantity did change prior to the invoice 
date. Therefore, upon further examination of the facts of this issue, 
the Department has determined that the invoice date is the appropriate 
date of sale for all TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee sales.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of CPF from Thailand to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States 
price (``USP'') to the foreign market value (``FMV''), as specified in 
the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of 
this notice.
    As noted in the ``Case History'' section above, Dole has reported 
all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, including those of 
Philippine origin, for each product category where Dole had shipments 
from both Thailand and the Philippines to the United States during 
1993. In order to calculate a less than fair value margin based on an 
estimated quantity of Dole's U.S. sales of Thai-origin merchandise 
during the POI, we have weighted the dumping margin for each product 
category by the ratio of the shipments of subject merchandise from 
Thailand to the total volume shipped from both Thailand and the 
Philippines during the last seven accounting periods of 1993 (i.e., 
July 19 through December 31, 1993). We used the July-December 
accounting periods as the basis for establishing the ratio rather than 
the entire 1993 period because Dole's average inventory turnover rate 
is reported to be six to seven months.
    For certain U.S. and German market sales, Dole reported its re-sale 
of subject merchandise purchased from unrelated producers in Thailand. 
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act (1994) specifies that FMV be calculated 
based on sales of ``such or similar merchandise''. The term ``such or 
similar merchandise'' is defined by section 771(16) of the Act (1994) 
as merchandise which is produced in the same country and by the same 
person as the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation. 
Therefore, we cannot use sales of CPF produced by persons other than 
Dole when calculating FMV. Accordingly, we have excluded all of Dole's 
German sales of subject merchandise it did not produce from our 
calculation of FMV.
    Similarly, in calculating USP, we also determined that it is 
appropriate to exclude all of Dole's U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise it did not produce. However, because we were unable to 
determine which particular U.S. sales were of merchandise produced by 
firms other than Dole, we have weighted the dumping margin for each 
product category identified by Dole. We weighted the dumping margin by 
applying a ratio of the volume of Dole-produced product to the combined 
total volumes of Dole-produced and purchased product shipped to the 
United States during 1993, allowing us to calculate a margin based on 
an estimated quantity of Dole-produced product. We note that this 
weighing period is different than that used to weigh Thai- and non-Thai 
produced merchandise. However, the only information available for 
purposes of weighing these sales was for the whole calendar year 1993.
    In addition, we preliminarily determined that Dole should have 
reported as U.S. sales certain shipments made during the POI which Dole 
claimed were pursuant to a long-term agreement negotiated prior to the 
POI (see Toho Titanium Co. versus United States, 743 F. Supp. 888, 891 
(CIT 1990); General Electric Co. v. United States, Slip. Op. 93-55 at 4 
(CIT, April 21, 1993). Based upon our analysis of the agreement, it 
appears that the price terms are indefinite and subject to Dole's 
control. Because these shipments were not reported, we are applying the 
average of all positive margins to one-half of the maximum quantity 
specified in the agreement to be purchased during 1994 (i.e., we have 
divided the yearly maximum quantity in half to correspond to our six-
month POI). Dole will be required to report these shipments for the 
final determination.

United States Price

    For TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee, we based USP on purchase price (PP), 
in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act (1994), because all of 
each company's U.S. sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place 
prior to importation into the United States and exporter's sales price 
(ESP) methodology, in those instances, was not otherwise indicated.
    SAICO failed to report certain U.S. sales in its revised Section C 
response which we determined to be sales made during the POI. We 
included these sales, as they were included in SAICO's initial 
submission of Section C response, and made appropriate adjustments for 
charges based on the information available (see Concurrence Memorandum, 
dated January 4, 1995).
    For Dole, where sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place 
after importation into the United States, we based USP on ESP, in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act (1994). For a small number of 
Dole's U.S. sales which took place prior to importation into the United 
States, we preliminarily determine USP to be based on ESP because: (1) 
The merchandise was introduced into the physical inventory of Dole's 
U.S. warehouses after importation and, thus, was not shipped directly 
from the cannery in Thailand to the unrelated U.S. customer; (2) all 
the selling activities associated with Dole's U.S. sales, including 
these sales, are handled in the United States through Dole's U.S. sales 
office by unrelated brokers located in the United States; and (3) it 
appears that Dole's canneries in Thailand have no control over the 
prices

[[Page 2737]]

charged to the U.S. customers. Therefore, because Dole's U.S. sales 
office acts as more than a processor of sales-related documentation, we 
consider these U.S. sales to be ESP transactions. (See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: New Minivans From 
Japan, 57 FR 21937, 21945 (May 26, 1992).

Malee

    For Malee, we calculated PP based on FOB and C&F prices charged to 
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act (1994), where 
appropriate, for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland 
freight, and ocean freight. We also made deductions in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where appropriate, for bank 
charges.

SAICO

    For SAICO, we calculated PP based on FOB prices charged to 
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions in 
accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of the Act (1994), where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and 
foreign brokerage and handling. We also made deductions in accordance 
with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where appropriate, for 
bank charges.

TIPCO

    For TIPCO, we calculated PP based on FOB and C&F prices charged to 
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
appropriate, for rebates. In addition, we made deductions for the 
following movement expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(2)(A) of 
the Act (1994): foreign brokerage and handling, port charges, foreign 
inland freight, and ocean freight. We also made deductions in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
appropriate, for bank charges and warranty expenses.

Dole

    We calculated Dole's ESP sales based on packed, FOB Dole's 
warehouse and delivered prices to unrelated customers in the United 
States. We made deductions in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(a)(2)(1994), where appropriate, for discounts, rebates, and 
direct selling expenses including unrelated commissions, credit and 
warranty expenses. We also made deductions in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.41(d)(2)(i) (1994), where appropriate, for foreign brokerage and 
handling, freight expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. duty and 
harbor fees. For purposes of this preliminary determination, we 
considered certain advertising expenses to be direct selling expenses 
and have deducted them in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2)(1994). In 
addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses, including inventory 
carrying expenses, market development and warehousing expenses in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2)(1994). The ``in and out'' 
warehousing expense claimed by Dole as a direct selling expense was 
reclassified as an indirect selling expense because, based on 
information on the record, it was not possible to determine that this 
expense directly applies to the sales under investigation. An amount 
for revenue Dole earned on certain sales where it charged its customers 
for special delivery terms was added to USP in order to offset the 
additional expenses incurred by Dole on the delivery of these sales.
    We recalculated Dole's reported credit expenses in instances where 
Dole had not reported a shipment and/or payment date because the 
merchandise had not yet been shipped and/or paid for at the time of the 
filing of this response. For those sales missing both a shipment and 
payment date, we used the average credit days of all transactions with 
a reported shipment and payment date. For those sales with a missing 
payment date only, we inserted the date of the preliminary 
determination.
    We excluded from our analysis Dole's U.S. sales of distressed 
merchandise because the quantity involved was insignificant and Dole 
made no comparable third country sales of distressed merchandise during 
the POI (see Concurrence Memorandum, dated January 4, 1995).

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of CPF in 
the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, we 
compared each respondents' volume of home market sales of subject 
merchandise to the volume of third country sales in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act (1994). As noted in the ``Case 
History'' section above, we found that the home market was not viable 
for any of the respondents. We selected Germany as the appropriate 
third country market for all four respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.49(b) (1994).
    For each of the respondents, we made adjustments, where 
appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.57 (1994). In addition, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1) of the Act (1994), we deducted third country packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs for all respondents.
    For TIPCO, SAICO, and Malee, we adjusted for differences in 
commissions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994) as follows: 
Where commissions were paid on some third country sales used to 
calculate FMV, we deducted from FMV both (1) indirect selling expenses 
attributable to those sales on which commissions were not paid; and (2) 
commissions. The total deduction was capped by the amount of the 
commission paid on the U.S. sales in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b)(1) (1994). Where no commissions were paid on third country 
sales used to calculate FMV, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) 
(1994), we deducted the lesser of either 1) the amount of the 
commission paid on the U.S. sale; or 2) the sum of the weighted average 
indirect selling expenses paid on the third country sales. Finally, the 
amount of the commission paid on the U.S. sale was added to FMV in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994).

Malee

    For Malee, we calculated FMV based on FOB and C&F prices charged to 
unrelated customers in Germany. In light of the decision of the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Ad Hoc Committee of AS-NM-
TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 
(Fed. Cir. 1994), the Department no longer deducts third country 
movement charges from FMV pursuant to its inherent power to fill in 
``gaps'' in the antidumping statute. Instead, we adjust for those 
expenses under the circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a) 
(1994). Accordingly, in the present case, we deducted post-sale third 
country market movement charges from FMV under the circumstance-of-sale 
provision. This adjustment included foreign brokerage and handling, 
foreign inland freight, and ocean freight. We also made deductions in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
appropriate, for bank charges.
    We made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit 
expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994) and 19 CFR 
353.56(a)(2) (1994).

SAICO

    We based FMV on FOB prices charged to unrelated customers in 
Germany. We deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the 
circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a)

[[Page 2738]]

(1994). The charges included foreign inland freight, foreign inland 
insurance, and foreign brokerage and handling. We also made deductions 
in accordance with section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where 
appropriate, for bank charges.
    We made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit 
expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994). For third-country 
sales with missing payment dates, we used the date of the preliminary 
determination of this investigation in order to calculate imputed 
credit.

TIPCO

    We based FMV on FOB prices charged to unrelated customers in 
Germany. We deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the 
circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a) (1994). The charges 
included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, port 
charges, and liner fees. We also made deductions in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994), where appropriate, for bank 
charges.
    We made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for differences in credit 
expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2) (1994).

Dole

    We calculated FMV based on packed, ex-warehouse, C&F port of 
import, ex-quay and delivered prices to unrelated customers.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act (1994) and 19 CFR 
353.56(a)(2)(1994), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for 
unrelated commissions as well as credit, bank, and merchandising 
expenses. We deducted post-sale movement charges from FMV under the 
circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a) (1994). The charges 
included freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling, European 
Community (EC) duty and EC brokerage and handling. For movement 
expenses where it was not possible to determine from information on the 
record how the expense directly applies to the sales under 
investigation (i.e., movement expenses associated with sales made on an 
ex-warehouse or delivered basis), we assumed all expenses to be 
indirect selling expenses for purposes of the preliminary 
determination. We deducted from FMV the weighted-average third country 
indirect selling expenses including, where appropriate, pre-sale 
movement expenses, warehousing and inventory carrying costs in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2)(1994). In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b) (1) and (2) (1994), because commissions were paid in both the 
United States and third country markets, the deduction for third 
country indirect selling expenses was capped by the sum of U.S. 
indirect selling expenses. We recalculated Dole's reported credit 
expense in instances where Dole had not reported a shipment and/or 
payment date because the merchandise had not yet been shipped and/or 
paid for at the time of the filing of this response. For those sales 
missing both a shipment and payment date, we used the average credit 
days of all transactions with a reported shipment and payment date. For 
those sales missing a payment date only, we inserted the date of the 
preliminary determination.
    As noted above, in accordance with sections 773(a)(1) and 771(16) 
of the Act (1994), we excluded from our analysis certain reported sales 
of subject merchandise which was not produced by Dole.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act (1994), we will verify 
information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act (1994), we are 
directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
CPF from Thailand, as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' 
section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register (except those that represent sales by Dole). The 
Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal 
to the estimated preliminary dumping margins, as shown below. This 
suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Manufacturers/producers/exporters             Margin percent       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dole......................................  0.30 (De minimus)           
TIPCO.....................................  7.81                        
SAICO.....................................  9.55                        
Malee.....................................  1.12                        
All Others................................  6.73                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act (1994), we have 
notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine whether imports of the subject 
merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, 
the U.S. industry before the later of 120 days after the date of the 
preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination.

Public Comment

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of the 
publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38 (1994), case briefs or other 
written comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary no later than May 1, 1995, and rebuttal briefs no 
later than May 3, 1995. A hearing, if requested, will be held on May 8, 
1995, at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 4830. Parties should 
confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours 
prior to the scheduled time. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) 
(1994), oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the 
briefs.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act (1994) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4) (1994).

    Date: January 4, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-687 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P