[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