[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6980-7019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2608]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-301-801]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1995.

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

Final Determination

    We determine that fresh cut roses (roses) from Colombia are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, 
as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as 
amended as of 1994. The estimated margins are shown in the ``Suspension 
of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the notice of amended preliminary determination on October 4, 
1994 (59 FR 51554, October 12, 1994), the following events have 
occurred.
    On September 27, 1994, respondents requested a postponement of the 
final determination. On September 28, 1994, the Department agreed to 
postpone the final determination until January 26, 1994.
    On September 29 and 30, 1994, we received responses to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaires from Grupo Sabana (Sabana), 
Grupo Intercontinental (Intercontinental), the Floramerica Group 
(Floramerica), Flores la Fragancia (Fragancia), and Grupo Sagaro 
(Sagaro).
    On October 3-11, 1994, Grupo Benilda (Benilda), Grupo Tropicales 
(Tropicales), Grupo Prisma (Prisma), Grupo Bojaca (Bojaca), 
Intercontinental, Sabana, the Andes Group (Andes), Grupo Papagayo 
(Papagayo), Grupo Clavecol (Clavecol), Sagaro, Agrorosas, Flores Mocari 
S.A. (Mocari), and Rosex submitted preverification corrections to their 
respective responses.
    Department of Commerce personnel conducted sales and cost 
verifications of the respondents' data in Miami from October 9, 1994, 
through November 3, 1994.
    On October 7, 1994, the petitioner submitted comments regarding the 
verification of the respondents' sales responses.
    In October 1994, Rosex and Andes submitted corrections identified 
at the beginning of verification.
    On November 7, 1994, the Caicedo Group (Caicedo), submitted 
certifications from the Government of Colombia that four members of its 
group did not export during the POI.
    On November 10, 1994, Arnold and Porter, counsel for Asocolflores a 
growers organization that represents 14 of the 16 individual 
respondents, met with Assistant Secretary for Import Administration 
Susan G. Esserman regarding a suspension agreement, (See memorandum to 
file, November 11, 1994).
    On November 14, 1994, Beall's Roses, Inc., an American importer, 
entered an appearance as an interested party in this investigation.
    On November 18, 1994, Asocolflores submitted four reports, the 
Botero Report, the Tayama Report, the Lewis & Sykes Report, and the 
Hortimarc Report addressing to the issue of whether or not third 
country prices should be used in calculating foreign market value 
(FMV).
    The Department's sales and cost verification reports for Sabana, 
Sagaro, Rosex, Floramerica, Mocari, Prisma, Fragancia, and Tropicales 
were issued from November 16 to 29, 1994.
    On November 28, 1994, the petitioner supplied the Department with 
comments concerning the four third country pricing reports supplied by 
the respondents on November 18, 1994.
    In November and December 1994, Rosex, Benilda, Floramerica, 
Intercontinental, Prisma, Bojaca, Sagaro, Tropicales, and Fragancia 
submitted revised sales listings and computer tapes.
    In September 1994, both the petitioner and the respondents 
requested a public hearing. Case and rebuttal briefs were received from 
the petitioner and the respondents on December 2, 6, and 12, 1994. On 
December 13, 1994, we held a public hearing. [[Page 6981]] 

Scope of Investigation

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

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993. (See the 
April 14, 1994, memorandum from the team to Richard W. Moreland).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Statute and to the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Such or Similar Comparisons

    We have determined that all roses covered by this investigation 
comprise two categories of ``such or similar'' merchandise: culls and 
export-quality roses. None of the respondents reported sales of culls 
in the United States. Therefore, no comparisons in this such or similar 
category were made. Regarding export quality roses, we compared USP to 
CV (See the CV section of this notice).

Fair Value Comparisons

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

United States Price

    For sales by all respondents except Floramerica, we based USP on 
purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, when the 
subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers in the United 
States prior to importation and when exporter's sales price (ESP) 
methodology was not otherwise indicated.
    In addition, for all respondents, where sales to the first 
unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United 
States, we based USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the 
Act.
    For all U.S. prices, we calculated USP using weighted-average U.S. 
prices by rose type, where the appropriate data was available. (See 
General Comments 4 and 5).
    During the POI, some respondents paid commissions to related 
parties in the United States. However, we made no adjustment for these 
payments. Instead, we subtracted the actual indirect selling expenses 
incurred by the related party in the United States because we 
determined that to account for both commissions and actual expenses 
would be distortive. (See General Comment 7).
    Finally, for those respondents who sold through related parties in 
the United States and who did not report inventory carrying costs on 
their ESP sales, we calculated these costs by using an inventory 
carrying period of seven days. According to a public report by Harry K. 
Tayama, PhD., submitted by the respondents in this investigation, this 
is an appropriate period. For companies with sales to unrelated 
parties, we accepted that inventory carrying costs were included in 
U.S. credit expenses.
    We made company-specific adjustments, as discussed below:
1. Agrorosas S.A.
    For Agrorosas, purchase price was based on packed, f.o.b. prices to 
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, brokerage and handling charges, U.S. 
import duties. We also deducted U.S. direct selling expenses, including 
credit expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, Colombian indirect 
selling expenses, and commissions to unrelated parties. We recalculated 
foreign inland freight and Colombian indirect selling expenses based on 
verification findings.
2. Caicedo Group
    For Caicedo, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts 
and other price adjustments, unrelated party commissions, foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight, 
repacking expenses, and Colombian indirect selling expenses incurred on 
ESP sales, including inventory carrying costs. We also deducted direct 
and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs.
3. Flores La Fragancia S.A.
    For Fragancia, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, foreign inland freight and air freight (which 
includes U.S. duties and U.S. brokerage).
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight (which includes U.S. duties and U.S. 
brokerage). We also deducted U.S. credit expenses and U.S. and 
Colombian indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying 
costs.
4. Flores Mocari S.A.
    For Mocari, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight and U.S. 
import duties.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, credit expenses, 
warranty expenses, and other U.S. direct expenses, and U.S. and 
Colombian indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying 
costs. We recalculated U.S. indirect selling expenses and credit 
expenses because we did not accept Mocari's allocation methodology (See 
Comment 39). As a result of this decision, and our decision on the 
interest rate issue, we have also recalculated warranty, credit, and 
inventory carrying costs. We also recalculated the inventory carrying 
costs using the cost of manufacturing (COM).
5. Grupo Andes
    For Andes, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight, and U.S. 
import duties.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions where necessary, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. customs duties, U.S. and Colombian 
indirect selling expenses including inventory carrying costs, and U.S. 
direct selling expenses including credit expenses. We 
[[Page 6982]] recalculated U.S. credit expenses to reflect the data 
examined at verification.
    For roses that were further manufactured into bouquets after 
importation, we adjusted for all value added in the United States, 
including the proportional amount of profit or loss attributable to the 
value added, pursuant to section 772 (e)(3) of the Act. We added 
packing to reported U.S. prices. For the cost of merchandise subject to 
further manufacturing, in addition to the adjustments cited in the 
section on FMV, below, for constructed value, we 1) corrected the U.S. 
general expenses to reflect a percentage of cost of goods sold, and 2) 
recalculated interest expense to exclude the CV offset.
6. Grupo Benilda
    For Benilda, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, 
and other movement expenses; as BIA, we broke U.S. inland freight 
expenses out from total reported U.S. indirect selling expenses to be 
deducted as a movement charge. We also deducted Colombian and U.S. 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, U.S. 
direct selling expenses, including credit expenses, and other direct 
expenses. We also deducted U.S. inland freight charges, which we 
removed from the U.S. indirect selling expenses reported as incurred by 
AGA, Benilda's U.S. sales subsidiary. For those ESP sales where Benilda 
did not report air freight and U.S. duty, we applied, as BIA, the 
average reported value for each such expense. Based on findings at 
verification, an allocation method was used to segregate freight 
expenses included in the U.S. indirect selling expenses and recalculate 
U.S. indirect selling expenses. Based on findings at verification, 
Benilda has included U.S. brokerage expenses as a component of U.S. 
indirect selling expenses.
7. Grupo Bojaca
    For Bojaca, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, brokerage and 
handling, and discounts and rebates. We also deducted U.S. direct 
selling expenses, including credit expenses, U.S. and Colombian 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, and 
commissions to unrelated parties.
8. Grupo Clavecol
    For Clavecol, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for discounts and foreign inland freight. As BIA, we 
deducted a percentage of gross price for one purchase price customer, 
in order to account for unreported wire transfer charges discovered at 
verification.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. brokerage and 
handling charges, credit expenses and U.S. and Colombian indirect 
selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs. At the 
preliminary determination, because Clavecol had not adequately 
supported its reported interest rate for calculating imputed credit 
expense, we used the highest public interest rate on the record in the 
companion investigation of roses from Ecuador, which was a ranged value 
for a U.S. subsidiary of an Ecuadoran rose producer, Guanguilqui Agro- 
Industrial S.A., of 10 percent (See the September 12, 1994, concurrence 
memorandum and the September 9, 1994, memorandum to the file). However, 
on September 22, 1994, Clavecol clarified that its U.S. subsidiary had 
no borrowings in the United States on which to base a dollar interest 
rate for calculating imputed credit on ESP sales. Therefore, we are 
using the reported credit expenses based on Clavecol's reported U.S. 
dollar interest rate. For the final determination we are deducting from 
ESP those discounts on ESP sales examined at verification but not 
submitted in computer form until Clavecol's December 7, 1994, 
submission. Accordingly, we also reduced Clavecol's reported U.S. 
credit expense by the proportion of discounts from gross price.
9. Grupo Floramerica
    For Floramerica, we calculated ESP based on packed prices to 
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import 
duties, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, warranty expenses 
including billing credits, promotional fees, credit expenses and U.S., 
Panamanian and Colombian indirect selling expenses, including inventory 
carrying costs. In addition, we added an amount for interest revenue to 
U.S. price.
10. Grupo Intercontinental
    For Intercontinental, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for price adjustments and foreign inland 
freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, 
U.S. brokerage and handling, credit expenses, and U.S. and Colombian 
indirect selling expenses incurred on ESP sales, including inventory 
carrying costs, and commissions to unrelated parties.
11. Grupo Papagayo
    For Papagayo, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight expenses, and other 
movement expenses.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight, 
brokerage and handling charges, and other movement expenses. We also 
deducted Colombian and U.S. indirect selling expenses, including 
inventory carrying costs, direct selling expenses, including credit, 
other expenses, and commissions paid to unrelated parties. We 
recalculated Colombian indirect selling expenses based on findings at 
verification.
12. Grupo Prisma
    For Prisma, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight. We recalculated foreign 
inland freight for certain customers based on verification findings.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, which we recalculated for certain customers based on 
verification findings. We also made deductions for air freight, U.S. 
import duties, brokerage and handling, U.S. direct selling 
[[Page 6983]] expenses, including credit expenses, Colombian indirect 
selling expenses and other indirect selling expenses. We recalculated 
Colombian indirect selling expenses based on verification findings. We 
made a deduction for unrelated party commissions. We deducted inventory 
carrying cost which we calculated, as respondent did not report this 
expense.
13. Grupo Sabana
    For Sabana, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight and U.S. 
import duties. For certain transactions for which Sabana did not 
provide proof of payment, we recalculated the credit expense using the 
date of the final determination as the payment date.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, 
direct selling expenses, including credit expenses, and U.S. and 
Colombian indirect selling expenses including inventory carrying costs. 
We recalculated the credit expense using the average interest rate 
reported by the companies that had short-term POI borrowings. We also 
recalculated the inventory carrying expenses using the average interest 
rate, an additional number of days for movement of the subject 
merchandise from Bogota to Miami, and the COM.
14. Grupo Sagaro
    For Sagaro, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, and brokerage and 
handling expenses. We also deducted credit expenses, promotional fees, 
and other direct expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses and 
commissions to unrelated parties.
15. Grupo Tropicales
    For Tropicales, we calculated purchase price based on packed, 
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and air 
freight. We deducted reported packing expenses and replaced them with 
verified data. We also deducted discounts, where appropriate.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts 
and rebates, foreign inland freight, air freight, brokerage, credit 
expenses, promotional fees, and other direct selling expenses, and U.S. 
and Colombian indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying 
costs. We recalculated credit, inventory carrying costs, and other U.S. 
indirect selling expenses, based on findings at verification. We 
deducted reported packing expenses and replaced them with verified 
data. We also deducted discounts, where appropriate.
16. Rosex Group
    For Rosex, we calculated purchase price based on packed, f.o.b. 
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
    We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in 
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, and brokerage and 
handling. We also deducted credit expenses, and promotional fees, as 
well as U.S. indirect selling expenses and commissions to unrelated 
parties.

Foreign Market Value

    To determine whether a respondent's sales of roses from Colombia to 
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the 
United States price (USP) to the foreign market value (FMV), as 
specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' 
sections of this notice. We based FMV on constructed value (CV) for all 
producers. For those respondents with viable home markets, we found 
insufficient sales above COP. For those respondents with viable third 
country markets, we rejected sales to these markets (see Comment 7). 
The remaining respondents had no viable home or third country markets. 
We calculated CV on a rose type basis, where the appropriate data was 
available (see Comment 6).
    In calculating FMV, wherever there were insufficient sales above 
cost in the home market, we based FMV on CV, as explained in ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'', below.

Home Market Sales

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of fresh 
cut roses in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales of export quality 
roses to the volume of third country sales of export quality roses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Based on this 
comparison, we determined that ten of the 16 respondents had viable 
home markets. The ten companies were: Andes; Benilda; Bojaca; Caicedo; 
Floramerica; Fragancia; Intercontinental; Papagayo; Prisma; and, 
Sagaro.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because the petitioner's allegations, when considered in light of 
the information on the record, gave the Department ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect'' that the ten respondents with known viable home 
markets were selling roses in Colombia at prices below their COP, the 
Department initiated COP investigations to determine whether these 
respondents had home market sales that were made at less than their 
respective COPs (See the September 8, 1994, memorandum from Richard W. 
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford). The respondents requested that we 
depart from our normal practice and interpret our COP analysis in such 
a manner as to either accept or reject all sales. We denied this 
request. (See the January 26, 1995, COP memorandum from the team to 
Barbara R. Stafford).
    In keeping with our past practice in cases involving perishable 
agricultural products, where we found less than 50 percent of a 
respondent's sales of roses were at prices below the COP, we did not 
disregard any below-cost sales because we determined that the 
respondent's below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities 
(See Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables From Mexico 45 FR 20512 (1980)). 
Where we found between 50 and 90 percent of a respondent's sales of 
export quality roses were at prices below the COP, and the below cost 
sales were made over an extended period of time, we disregarded only 
the below-cost sales. Where we found that more than 90 percent of 
respondent's sales were at prices below the COP, and the sales were 
made over an extended period of time, we disregarded all sales for that 
product and calculated FMV based on CV. The Department enunciated its 
practice of modifying the standard cost test to account for the 
perishability of products in Certain Fresh-Cut Flowers from Mexico (3/
1/88 to 4/31/89), and stated that the 50 percent modification only 
affected the lower threshold of the standard 10-90-10 test. The 
Department is continuing this standard practice in this investigation 
(for a detailed discussion of the history of the cost test for 
perishable products, see the January [[Page 6984]] 26, 1995, 50-90-10 
memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford).

Constructed Value Comparisons: Companies With Home Market Sales Below 
the Cost of Production

    In order to determine whether the home market prices were above the 
COP, we calculated the COP based on the sum of a respondent's cost of 
cultivation, general expenses, and packing. For all respondents with 
viable home market sales, we found that more than 90 percent of all 
sales fell below COP for each company. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(b) of the Act we disregarded all home market sales and 
calculated FMV on CV. We calculated CV based on the sum of a 
respondent's cost of cultivation, plus general expenses, profit, and 
U.S. packing. For general expenses, which includes selling and 
financial expenses (SG&A), we used the greater of the reported general 
expenses or the statutory minimum of ten percent of the cost of 
cultivation. For profit, we used the statutory minimum of eight percent 
of the cost of cultivation and general expenses, in accordance with 
section 773(e)(B) of the Act (19 CFR 353.50(a)(2)) and Ad Hoc Committee 
of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, Slip 
Op. 93-1239 (Fed. Cir., January 5, 1994).

Constructed Value Revisions

    We made specific revisions to each respondent's submitted COP and 
CV data as described below:
1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.
    For Fragancia, we: (1) Increased G&A expenses by the amount of 
other G&A incurred in December, 1993; (2) disallowed interest income 
earned on investments of working capital not deemed to be short-term; 
(3) adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses to account for the 
effect of Colombian inflation; and (4) included the actual greenhouse 
plastic expense incurred during the POI.
2. Grupo Andes
    For Andes, we: (1) adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses 
to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; (2) adjusted G&A 
expense to include parent company G&A costs; and (3) adjusted 
depreciation expense for a computational error.
3. Grupo Benilda
    For Benilda, we: (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation 
expenses to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; and (2) 
allocated company-wide net financial expenses to rose production and 
non-subject merchandise based on the ratio of cultivated area to flower 
type.
4. Grupo Bojaca
    For Bojaca, we: (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses 
to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; and (2) reclassified 
the miscellaneous income items from financial income to general and 
administrative expense.
5. Caicedo Group
    For Caicedo, we adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses to 
account for the effect of Colombian inflation.
6. Grupo Floramerica
    For Floramerica, we: (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation 
expenses to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; (2) adjusted 
cultivation costs to include all 1993 year-end adjustments; and (3) 
disallowed interest income earned on investments of working capital not 
deemed to be short-term.
7. Grupo Intercontinental
    For Intercontinental, we: (1) Allocated company-wide G&A costs to 
rose production and non-subject merchandise based on the ratio of 
cultivated area to flower type; (2) allocated company-wide net 
financial expenses to rose production and non-subject merchandise based 
on the ratio of cultivated area to flower type; and (3) adjusted 
amortization and depreciation expenses to account for the effect of 
Colombian inflation; (4) corrected materials, direct labor, and field 
structure costs to account for amounts that were incorrectly 
capitalized as preproductive expenses; and (5) adjusted home market 
packing to account for inconsistencies in respondent's reporting of 
this expense.
8. Grupo Papagayo
    For Papagayo, we: (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation 
expenses to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; (2) 
reclassified bad debt expense from financing expense to indirect 
selling expense; and (3) included certain income and expense items 
which related to the general production activity of the company as a 
whole in general and administrative expense.
9. Grupo Prisma
    For Prisma, we: (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses 
to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; and (2) allocated 
company-wide net financial expenses to rose production and non-subject 
merchandise based on the ratio of cultivated area to flower type.
10. Grupo Sagaro
    For Sagaro, we: (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses 
to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; (2) included the worm 
culture costs as a general research and development expense; and (3) 
allocated company-wide net financial expenses to rose production and 
non-subject merchandise based on the ratio of cultivated area to flower 
type.

Constructed Value Adjustments

    In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as 
described below:
1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we deducted the indirect selling 
expenses up to the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred on 
U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56 (b)(2).
2. Grupo Andes
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses. We 
recalculated U.S. credit expenses to reflect data examined at 
verification.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses. We also 
deducted from CV the indirect selling expenses, including inventory 
carrying costs, up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred 
on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2). We recalculated 
U.S. credit expenses to reflect data examined at verification.
3. Grupo Benilda
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to section 
773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance 
of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses and other 
direct selling expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses including credit. We also deducted from CV 
the indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, up 
to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2). [[Page 6985]] 
4. Grupo Bojaca
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for direct selling expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses. We deducted the indirect selling expenses, 
including, where appropriate, inventory carrying costs, up to the sum 
of the indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales and commissions 
to unrelated parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
5. Caicedo Group
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses and other direct 
selling expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of 
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2). We revised reported U.S.-incurred indirect selling 
expense to include sales to local vendors in the calculation of the 
indirect selling expense ratio. We recalculated U.S. credit expenses to 
reflect data examined at verification.
6. Grupo Floramerica
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect selling 
expenses up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. 
sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
7. Grupo Intercontinental
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses. We 
recalculated U.S. direct selling expenses to reflect data examined at 
verification. We also deducted from CV indirect selling expenses, 
including inventory carrying costs, up to the U.S. unrelated party 
commissions, and added U.S. commissions.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses. We recalculated 
U.S. direct selling expenses to reflect data examined at verification. 
We also deducted from CV indirect selling expenses, including inventory 
carrying costs, up to the sum of U.S. unrelated party commissions and 
indirect selling expenses 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
8. Grupo Papagayo
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of 
sales adjustment for direct selling expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect 
selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses and 
unrelated party commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
9. Grupo Prisma
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of 
sales adjustment for credit expenses and other direct selling expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect 
selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses and 
unrelated party commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
10. Grupo Sagaro
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect selling 
expenses up to the amount of indirect selling expenses and commissions 
paid to unrelated parties incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2).

Constructed Value: Companies Without Viable Home Markets and 
Companies Without Adequate Sales in Any Foreign Market

    The Department has determined that, in the case of those 
respondents for which the home market was not viable, FMV should be 
based on CV rather than a comparison to third country prices. (For a 
full discussion of this issue, see Comment 6 of this notice.) These 
three companies were: Clavecol, Sabana, and Tropicales.
    Additionally, for three other respondents, we calculated FMV based 
directly on CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, because 
these respondents did not have adequate sales in either the home market 
or in any third country markets during the POI. These three companies 
were: Agrorosas, Mocari, and Rosex.

 Constructed Value Revisions

    We made specific revisions to each respondents' CV data as 
described below:
1. Agrorosas S.A.
    For Agrorosas, we: (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation 
expenses to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; (2) adjusted 
G&A to reflect the actual cost of secretarial salaries and to include a 
portion of the cost of maintaining the office in Bogota.
2. Flores Mocari S.A.
    For Mocari, we: (1) Increased pre-production amortization expense 
to account for an understatement of capitalized costs; (2) adjusted 
amortization and depreciation expenses to account for the effect of 
Colombian inflation; and (3) increased financial expense for foreign 
exchange loss on debt.
3. Grupo Clavecol
    For Clavecol, we; (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation 
expenses to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; and (2) 
allocated company-wide net financial expense to rose production and 
nonsubject merchandise based on cost of sales.
4. Grupo Sabana
    For Sabana, we; (1) Adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses 
to account for the effect of Colombian inflation; (2) allocated 
company-wide net financial expenses to rose production and non-subject 
merchandise based on the ratio of cultivated area by flower type; and 
(3) adjusted cull revenue to reflect the amount verified by the sales 
analyst.
5. Grupo Tropicales
    For Tropicales, we adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses 
to account for the effect of Colombian inflation.
6. Rosex Group
    For Rosex, we: (1) Reclassified certain expenses from G&A expense 
to cost of manufacturing; (2) disallowed interest income earned on 
investments of working capital not deemed to be short-term; and (3) 
adjusted amortization and depreciation expenses to account for the 
effect of Colombian inflation.

 Constructed Value Adjustments

    In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as 
described below:
1. Agrorosas S.A.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for direct selling expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for [[Page 6986]] direct selling expenses. We also deducted from CV the 
indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling 
expenses incurred on U.S. sales and U.S. commissions to unrelated 
parties.
2. Flores Mocari S.A.
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sales 
adjustments for direct selling expenses including credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of 
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2).
3. Grupo Clavecol
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to section 
773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance 
of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of 
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2).
4. Grupo Sabana
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sales 
adjustments for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses. We also 
deducted from CV the indirect selling expenses, including inventory 
carrying costs, up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred 
on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
5. Grupo Tropicales
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sales 
adjustments, where appropriate, for direct selling expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for direct selling expenses, including credit expenses. We also 
deducted from CV the indirect selling expenses, including inventory 
carrying costs, up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred 
on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
6. Rosex LTDA
    For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
    For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the indirect selling 
expenses up to the amount of indirect selling expenses and commissions 
paid to unrelated parties incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.56(b)(2).

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we conducted verification 
of the information provided by the respondents by using standard 
verification procedures, including the examination of relevant sales, 
cost and financial records, and selection of original source of 
original source documentation.

Critical Circumstances

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

General Comments

    Petitioner and respondents raised comments pertaining to the 
concordance, the treatment of Difmer adjustments, the aggregation of 
third country markets, and annual and monthly averaging of FMV. These 
comments were rendered moot by the Department's decision to base FMV on 
CV. See Comment 6 below.

Comments Pertaining to Scope

Comment 1: Roses in Bouquets

    Respondents assert that roses in bouquets should not be included 
within the scope of the investigation for four reasons: (1) There is no 
legal basis for the Department to include within the scope of the 
investigation only a component part contained in imported finished 
merchandise (i.e., the roses within the bouquet); (2) bouquets are not 
within the same class or kind of merchandise as roses according to the 
criteria set out in Diversified Products v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 
883, 889 (CIT 1983)(Diversified Products); (3) the Department lacks the 
authority to expand the investigation to include bouquets; and (4) 
petitioner does not represent producers of bouquets or producers of 
``roses in bouquets.'' Respondents have supplied an analysis of the 
information in these investigations as applied to Diversified Products.
    Petitioner requests that the Department continue to include roses 
in bouquets within the scope of its investigation. Petitioner states 
that since the description of bouquets is found in the petition, the 
Department's and ITC's preliminary determinations are dispositive as to 
the scope of the investigation, and an analysis under Diversified 
Products is unnecessary, although petitioner supplied such an analysis. 
Petitioner states that the scope description in the petition covers all 
fresh cut roses, whether imported as individual blooms (stems) or in 
bouquets or bunches. Also, petitioner claims to represent growers 
producing mixed bouquets of fresh cut flowers, and hence has standing 
to file a petition covering bouquets.
    Petitioner maintains that any antidumping duty order issued in this 
investigation will be substantially undermined if foreign rose 
producers/exporters can circumvent the order by importing bouquets of 
fresh cut roses covered by the order. Petitioner states that it would 
be absurd for the Department to permit respondents to combine 
merchandise subject to the order to achieve a final product outside the 
scope of the order.
DOC Position
    Roses, including roses in bouquets, are within the scope of the 
investigation and constitute a single class or kind of merchandise. 
Because the scope covers only the roses in bouquets, not the bouquets 
themselves, respondents' arguments that bouquets constitute a separate 
class or kind are inapposite. Therefore, a Diversified Products 
analysis is not required. The Department's conclusion that all roses, 
whether or not imported as individual stems or in bouquets or bunches, 
constitute a single class or kind of merchandise is consistent with its 
determination in Flowers. See Flowers, 59 FR 15159, 15162-4 (March 31, 
1994) (final results of 4th admin. review).
    The packaging and presentation of roses in bunches and bouquets do 
not transform the roses into merchandise outside the scope of the 
order. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Red 
Raspberries from Canada, 50 FR 19768, 19771 (May 10, 1985). Nor is the 
rose transformed into a new article by virtue of being bunched or 
placed in a bouquet. Notably, Customs disaggregates bouquets, requiring 
separate reporting and [[Page 6987]] collection of duties on individual 
flower stems regardless of how they are imported. As a result, Customs, 
in this case, will collect duty deposits only on individual rose stems 
incorporated in bouquets, not the bouquets themselves.
    Respondents argue that there is no legal basis for the Department 
to include within the scope of an investigation only a component part 
of imported finished merchandise, i.e., the roses within the bouquet. 
As discussed above, consistent with Customs, the Department is not 
treating bouquets as a distinct finished product.
    Respondents' argument that the Department cannot expand the 
investigation to include bouquets, also can be dismissed. A review of 
the descriptions contained in the petition and the Department's and ITC 
preliminary determinations reveals quite clearly that what is covered 
by this investigation is all fresh cut roses, regardless of the form in 
which they were imported. Specifically, the petition covers ``all fresh 
cut roses, whether imported as individual blooms (stems) or in bouquets 
or bunches, as provided in HTSUS 0603.10.60.'' Petition at 8 (emphasis 
added). HTSUS 0603.10.60 covers

    Cut flowers and flower buds of a kind suitable for bouquets or 
for ornamental purposes, fresh * * *

0603.10.60   Roses:
      10   Sweetheart
      90   Other

Furthermore, the scope of this investigation unequivocally states that

    The products covered by this investigation are fresh cut roses, 
including sweethearts or miniatures, intermediates, and hybrid teas, 
whether imported as individual blooms (stems) or in bouquets or 
bunches.

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 48285 
(Colombia), 59 FR 48294 (Ecuador) (emphasis added). Finally, in its 
preliminary determination, the ITC found that ``the plain language of 
Commerce's scope description in these investigations demonstrates that 
the merchandise subject to investigation covers the roses in the 
bouquets only,'' and not the bouquets themselves. ITC Pub. No. 2766 at 
9 (March 1994). Neither the Department nor the petitioner has ever 
attempted to include the bouquets themselves, nor any of the other 
types of flowers which comprise a bouquet, within the scope of this 
investigation. The plain language of the Department's scope description 
demonstrates that the merchandise subject to investigation covers the 
roses in the bouquets only and does not expressly state that the 
bouquets are themselves covered. Notably, the ITC stated that 
``[b]ouquets are referred to in the scope definition to indicate that 
all fresh cut roses are covered, regardless of the form, or packaging, 
they are imported in.'' ITC Pub. No. 2766 at 9 (March 1994).
    Finally, we disagree with respondents' contention that petitioner 
lacks standing in this investigation because it does not represent 
producers of bouquets or producers or ``roses in bouquets.'' In order 
to have standing in an antidumping investigation, petitioner must 
produce, or represent producers of, the like product. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Nepheline Syenite from 
Canada, 57 FR 9237 (March 17, 1992)(comment 5). We agree with the ITC 
that there is one like product in this investigation--``all fresh cut 
roses, regardless of variety, or whether included in bouquets.'' ITC 
Pub. No. 2766 at 9, 14 (March 1994). Because petitioner represents 
producers of fresh cut roses they have standing in this investigation.

Comment 2: Spray Roses

    Respondent HOSA, an exporter/purchaser of spray roses, argues that 
spray roses are a genetically distinct species of the rosa genus. 
Therefore, HOSA argues that the Department should exclude spray roses 
from the scope of the investigation. HOSA states that spray roses are 
not explicitly included in the scope of the investigation. Furthermore, 
HOSA argues that spray roses were never mentioned in the petition nor 
were price or cost of production data provided in the petition for 
spray roses. HOSA suggests that the Department analyze spray roses 
pursuant to the criteria set out in Diversified Products analysis to 
evaluate whether spray roses are within the scope of this 
investigation.
    Petitioner requests that the Department include spray roses in the 
antidumping duty order. Petitioner states that since the description of 
spray roses is found in the petition, the instant investigation and the 
Department and ITC determinations are dispositive as to the scope of 
the investigation and analysis under Diversified Products is 
unnecessary, (although respondent provides an analysis under 
Diversified Products). Petitioner asserts that all fresh cut roses, 
without regard to stem length, species or variety, were specifically 
covered in the scope of the petition. Petitioner contends that the fact 
that spray roses may be of a distinct species of the rosaceae family 
does not exclude them from the petition, since the petition includes 
all roses, regardless of species. Although it claims it as unnecessary, 
petitioner conducts an analysis under the Diversified Products criteria 
to show that spray roses are properly included in the scope of the 
petition.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner. The descriptions of the merchandise in 
the petition and in the Department's scope are dispositive with respect 
to spray roses and the evidence on the record, including the ITC's 
preliminary determination, supports treating this rose variety no 
differently than other varieties within the same class or kind of 
merchandise subject to these investigations.
    The scope of the petition clearly refers to spray roses. First, the 
petition notes that the scope ``* * * covers all fresh cut roses, 
whether imported as individual blooms, stems or in bouquets or 
bunches.'' Spray roses are fresh cut roses sold in bunches or bouquets 
and are classified under the HTSUS subheading 0603.10.60, as are 
standard roses. Second, the petition states that its scope is ``* * * 
inclusive of all imported roses from Colombia and Ecuador, without 
regard to stem length, species or varieties.'' Third, the scope 
description in the petition cites the ITC's definition from the prior 
roses investigation. See ITC's Publication 2178 at 4-15 (April 1989) 
``Roses are members of the rosaceae family * * *'' Genetically, spray 
roses are members of the rosaceae family, as are standard roses.
    While differences exist between spray and standard roses, it should 
be noted that differences also exist between other varieties of roses 
within the scope of this investigation. The ITC stated in its 
preliminary finding of fresh cut roses from Colombia and Ecuador that 
``* * * we note that different rose varieties also have varying stem 
lengths and bloom sizes (e.g., as with spray roses, sweetheart roses 
have smaller buds and shorter stems than traditional roses), which we 
do not find to be significant differences in physical 
characteristics.'' See ITC Pub. No. 2766 at 10 (March 1994). Although 
the ITC's preliminary finding is not dispositive with respect to this 
scope analysis, it clearly demonstrates that the physical differences 
of each rose variety within the same like product category are not 
merely unique to spray roses, and that the differences of the varieties 
within the same like product category are not sufficient ``to rise to 
the level'' of differences in the like product.
[[Page 6988]]

    We also note that the rationale used by the ITC in these 
investigations, of including spray roses within the same like product 
category, is consistent with the Department's rationale as to whether a 
product should or should not be in the same class or kind of 
merchandise. In its notice of final determination of sales at LTFV in 
Antifriction Bearings from West Germany, 54 FR 18992 (May 3, 1989), the 
Department stated that ``the real question is whether the difference is 
so material as to alter the essential nature of the product, and 
therefore, rise to the level of class or kind differences.'' The class 
or kind of merchandise subject to these investigations includes 
different rose varieties such as sweethearts or miniatures, 
intermediates, and hybrid teas. Like spray roses, each variety within 
the class or kind differs from the other varieties. However, in this 
instance, the similarities greatly outweigh the dissimilarities and the 
dissimilarities do not alter the essential nature (i.e., that spray 
roses are export quality roses) of the spray roses.

Comment 3: Rose Petals

    Simpson & Turner, an importer of rose heads, rose petals (petals), 
and foliage (by-products) argues that such products should be excluded 
from the scope of this investigation because these products are not the 
same ``class or kind of merchandise'' as the subject merchandise. 
Simpson & Turner maintains that the petition refers to stems, but does 
not mention petals or foliage, and the HTSUS description refers to 
flower buds as ``flower buds of a kind suitable for bouquets or for 
ornamental purposes.''
    Simpson & Turner argues that rose heads, rose petals and foliage 
were not mentioned in the Department's LTFV investigation's initiation 
or preliminary determination. The scope description specifically refers 
to a fresh cut rose as a bloom, which is clarified to be a stem. The 
scope description then defines the form of importation of the stem as 
an individual, part of a bouquet or bunch.
    Petitioner asserts that Simpson & Turner fails to distinguish 
imported ``rose bush foliage, rose petals, and rose heads'' from 
``culls'' within the scope of the this investigation. Petitioner 
asserts that culls are within the scope of the petition and 
investigation. Petitioner states that in its preliminary determination, 
the Department found that culls are a ``such or similar category'' 
separate from export quality roses but nonetheless covered by the 
petition and states further that no party has challenged the 
Department's determination that culls are within the scope of the 
investigation.
    Petitioner states that the description of merchandise provided by 
Simpson & Turner, however, invites the Department to issue a scope 
ruling that would permit culls to enter the United States outside the 
order. To the extent that Simpson & Turner seek to exclude more than 
loose rose petals, loose rose foliage, or stems without rose heads, the 
described merchandise apparently consists of culls, which as such are 
included by the plain language of the petition and by the Department's 
unchallenged ruling concerning ``such or similar'' categories.
    Petitioner further notes that culls are simply roses that did not 
meet the criteria of quality and length required for export. Culls may 
``have crooked stems, deformed buds, or have opened prematurely.'' 
(Guaisa Sec. A Resp. at 26). Consequently, petitioner asserts that the 
roses imported by Simpson & Turner, consisting of rose heads with very 
small stems or of roses ``normally discarded at the farm level in time 
of grading due to poor appearance, stage of development and scarring'' 
meet the definition of culls and should thus be included within the 
scope of these investigations.
DOC Position
    We agree with Simpson & Turner. See Scope of Investigation above, 
indicating that loose rose foliage (greens), loose rose petals and 
detached buds should be excluded from the scope of these 
investigations.
    The scope used in the preliminary determination clearly stated that 
roses which are imported as individual blooms (stems) or in bouquets or 
bunches are included. However, we asked petitioner to comment on this 
scope issue at the December 12, 1994, Colombia hearing, at which time 
petitioner clearly stated that it does not consider loose rose foliage, 
loose rose petals or buds detached from the stem to be included in the 
scope of these investigations.

Comments Pertaining to USP

Comment 4: Annual and Monthly U.S. Price Averaging

    Petitioner argues that USP should not be averaged over a full month 
or over a year because such prices would be unrepresentative of 
transaction-specific, daily or weekly U.S. sales. Petitioner claims 
that both monthly and annual averaging would obscure or mask dumping. 
Petitioner contends that monthly averaging would mask dumping of roses 
at low prices within every month and that annual averaging would be 
even more distortive, concealing dumping during months in which major 
holidays occur.
    Petitioner claims that the facts in the instant Roses 
investigations do not support the reasons articulated in the Flowers 
administrative reviews for departing from the normal Department 
practice of using daily U.S. prices. Specifically, petitioner maintains 
that, because roses have a shorter life span than other fresh cut 
flowers, there is no basis for using a monthly average U.S. price. 
Petitioner also asserts that respondents' inability to control 
production, timing, or prices is irrelevant to the application of the 
averaging provision in the statute.
    Respondents claim that the Department erred in the preliminary 
determination by comparing one average constructed value encompassing 
all varieties and stem lengths to a product-specific monthly average 
USP. Respondents argue that this comparison is inappropriate because, 
although growers do not maintain cost records on a variety-specific or 
stem-specific basis, different rose products have different physical 
characteristics and different costs and values related to productivity 
and consumer preferences, all of which result in widely different 
prices. Respondents assert that if costs are standardized, yet prices 
fluctuate according to consumer demand for particular rose products, 
average costs can only be meaningfully compared to equivalent average 
prices without artificially creating margins. Respondents argue that an 
annual average constructed value should be compared to an annual 
average USP. Respondents state that the unique factors characterizing 
rose production, demand, and perishability, in addition to extreme 
seasonality, compel the use of annual average U.S. prices.
    Respondents maintain that using any type of monthly average USP in 
the comparison measures only seasonality and not dumping. Specifically, 
respondents argue that the Department must take into account: (1) That 
the USP cycle is an unavoidable consequence of the highly seasonal 
nature of U.S. demand; (2) the high perishability of the product; (3) 
the rose production cycle is geared towards consumer demand which is 
concentrated around Valentine's Day; and (4) roses cannot be stored and 
rose production is a continuous process that cannot be turned off after 
Valentine's Day. According to respondents, these conditions result in 
unavoidable price swings. For these reasons, respondents contend that 
using any type of monthly USP average artificially creates dumping 
[[Page 6989]] margins by establishing a benchmark that no producer can 
meet.
    In addition, respondents contend that using monthly average USP 
does not account for month-to-month volatility caused by the extreme 
seasonality of U.S. demand. Therefore, respondents maintain that 
monthly average U.S. prices are not representative for purposes of 
comparison with an annual CV and that only an annual average USP 
captures the full demand/production cycle, undistorted by seasonal 
factors.
    Regarding petitioner's contention that the Department should not 
use a monthly USP in the Roses cases because, unlike flowers, roses 
have a shorter life, Floramerica points out that shelf life alone does 
not justify a departure from the Department's traditional averaging 
methodology and further, that there is information on the record which 
shows that roses do not have a shorter shelf life.
DOC Position
    19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(b) and 19 353.59(b) provide the Department with 
the discretionary authority to use sampling or averaging in determining 
United States price, provided that the average is representative of the 
transactions under investigation. In these investigations, we 
determined, based on a combination of factors, to average U.S. sales. 
The Department was confronted with approximately 555,000 Colombian 
transactions which, when combined with the number of estimated U.S. 
sales transactions from Ecuador, exceeded one million. As a result, a 
decision to make fair value comparisons on a transaction-specific basis 
would place an onerous, perhaps even an impossible, burden on the 
Department in terms of data collection, verification, and analysis. 
Consequently, we exercised our discretion in order to reduce the 
administrative burden and maximize efficient use of our limited 
resources. Additionally, we recognize the need for consistency in our 
treatment of these concurrent investigations and, although the number 
of transactions may vary between the two countries, uniform application 
of an averaging methodology ensures that both Colombia and Ecuador will 
be treated on the same basis. See the June 24, 1994, Decision 
Memorandum pertaining to reporting requirements from Team to Barbara 
Stafford.
    Moreover, we took into account that the majority of respondents, 
who make U.S. sales on consignment, have little, if any, ability to 
provide the level of detail which would have been required for the 
Department to do a transaction-specific analysis because unrelated 
consignees generally keep accounts for respondents' U.S. sales in 
monthly grower reports. Upon review of data submitted, and later 
verified, we concluded that a month was the shortest period of time 
which would permit all respondents to provide U.S. sales information on 
a uniform basis, thus ensuring that we treated all respondents in a 
similar manner in terms of data collection and analysis.
    Importantly, because of the highly perishable nature of the 
product, we believe that monthly averaging of U.S. prices in these 
investigations provides a fair and more representative measure of 
value. Unlike nonperishable merchandise, respondent growers cannot 
withhold their roses from the market to await a better price. Rather, 
respondents are faced with the choice of accepting whatever return they 
can obtain on certain sales, so-called ``end-of-the-day'' and 
``distress sales'', or of destroying the product. Were we to perform a 
transaction-by-transaction comparison, such an approach, beyond the 
limits imposed on the Department as described above, would give undue 
and disproportionate weight to end-of-the-day sales. Even where a 
respondent's normal sales were above fair value, he could be found to 
be dumping solely on the basis of sales made as a result of 
perishability. By adopting a monthly averaging period, we ensure that 
the entire range of distress and nondistress sale prices are covered.
    Furthermore, while use of actual prices and transaction-by-
transaction data is the norm, the statute allows for averaging provided 
such averaging yields representative results. We conclude that, in 
light of the above factors, using monthly averages of U.S. sales prices 
constitutes the shortest period necessary to capture a representative 
analysis of the ordinary trading practices in this industry. Our 
approach is consistent with the Department's past practice in 
investigations of fresh cut flowers as well as other perishable 
agricultural products. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 20491 
(May 17, 1990); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico, 52 FR 6361 (March 3, 1987). 
Furthermore, our approach has been upheld consistently by the court. 
See Floral Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 1492, 1500-2 
(CIT 1991); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United 
States, 704 F. Supp. 1114 (CIT 1989).
    Lastly, we are unpersuaded by two additional arguments proffered by 
petitioner to shorten the averaging period in these investigations. 
First, petitioner claims a factual distinction between the life-span of 
a rose and a fresh cut flower. However, we find that the record in 
these investigations establishes that from the time of importation, 
roses last approximately seven to ten days, while flowers last 
approximately ten to fourteen days and both may be held for more than 
one week in refrigerated coolers. Thus, we find this to be a 
distinction without a difference. Second, petitioner argues that, by 
not using a shorter averaging period, dumping during peak holiday 
periods such as at Valentine's Day, will elude the Department. 
According to petitioner, sales of roses imported before this holiday, 
but which are sold after the holiday when demand is quite low, will be 
sales at dumped prices. The petitioner does not consider such dumped 
sales legitimately within the category of end-of-the-day sales, for 
which our averaging period is designed to fairly account. Rather, 
petitioner argues that by averaging these low- priced sales with high-
priced holiday sales for the month of February, dumping will be 
understated. While we recognize that using a monthly averaging period 
could result in some offsetting of high-priced sales with low-priced 
sales, we believe that overall, monthly averaging is representative of 
the transactions under investigation. Moreover, in verifying numerous 
companies' February grower reports we found that only an insignificant 
number of roses were imported in February after Valentine's Day, as 
compared to the overwhelming volume imported during the first 13 days 
of the month, thus ameliorating this circumstance.

Annual Averaging

    While we recognize that averaging is necessary in these 
investigations, we believe that averaging U.S. sales prices over a year 
is inappropriate. As we stated in Flowers,


nothing in the statute, the legislative history, or the Department's 
practice (including Final Determination of Sales of Not Less Than 
Fair Value: Fresh Winter Vegetables from Mexico (45 FR 20512; March 
24, 1980) supports the broad notion of annual averaged U.S. prices. 
Annual averaging would extend too much credit to respondents by 
allowing them to dump for entire months when demand is sluggish, so 
long as they recoup their losses during months of high demand.


See Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Revocation 
in Part of the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from 
[[Page 6990]] Colombia, 56 FR 50554, 50556 (October 7, 1991). The CIT 
has agreed with the Department that monthly averaging adequately 
compensates for perishablilty but averaging over a longer period could 
obscure dumping. See Floral Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. 
Supp. 1492, 1500 (CIT 1991).
    Even though respondents argue that the demands of the U.S. market 
determine their U.S. pricing and that they are price takers rather than 
price setters, we note that the intent to dump is not the issue. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico, 52 FR 6361, 6364 (March 3, 1987). The issue is 
whether, in fact, dumping is occurring.

Comment 5: Product Averaging

    Regarding the use of variety and stem-specific monthly average 
USPs, respondents contend that the Department is bound by its 
longstanding administrative practice in the original investigations and 
subsequent administrative reviews of Flowers to calculate monthly 
average USPs by flower type, without regard to variety or grade. 
Additionally, the Department has consistently concluded that comparing 
CV data by flower type to grade or variety-specific USPs would produce 
unfair and distorted results. Respondents maintain that the Department 
has not furnished any reasonable explanation for its departure from 
this practice in the preliminary determination.
    Respondents urge the Department to compare all rose products to all 
rose products on an annual average basis. Alternately, respondents 
request that the Department compare product-specific, monthly U.S. 
prices to identical product-specific, monthly FMV prices. Respondents 
note that where FMV is not available, CV should be used. However, the 
profit element should be monthly FMV profit, not annual FMV profit. In 
addition, respondents argue that average CV of all products combined 
must be compared to U.S. prices of non-matched products.
    Petitioner argues that product averaging should not be used to 
obliterate differences in prices due to physical differences in roses. 
Petitioner stresses that it is particularly important that the prices 
of the low-priced Visa roses are not averaged together with prices of 
other red roses. Petitioner maintains that an average across varieties, 
colors, or stem lengths substantially distorts the market reality.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondents that averaging by flower type is 
appropriate in this investigation. Consistent with Flowers, where 
possible, we compared USP and CV on a rose type basis, i.e., hybrid 
tea, sweetheart, etc. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 59 FR 
15159, 15160-61 (March 31, 1994) (4th admin. review final). For a 
number of companies, however, we were unable to compare USP and CV on a 
rose type basis because the respondents do not keep their cost data in 
such a fashion. As a result, in order to ensure an ``apples-to-apples'' 
comparison, we aggregated U.S. price data to arrive at a weighted-
average monthly USP for all rose types for comparison with respondents' 
single average CV for all rose types. While it would have been 
preferable to disaggregate rose costs for these respondents in order to 
make a fair value comparison on a rose type basis, we were not able to 
do so in this investigation because the data were not available and we 
did not present respondents with a methodology for disaggregating 
costs. However, we intend to do so in any future administrative reviews 
if an order is issued. We will seek to devise a method to enable us to 
compute cost by rose type, which will not require respondents to change 
their method of recordkeeping.

Comments Pertaining to Third Country

Comment 6: Third Country as Basis for FMV

    Petitioner maintains that there is no basis in law for rejecting 
third country prices that are adequate to establish a viable market. In 
addition, petitioner states that the Department's regulations state a 
preference for the use of third country prices, where the home market 
is not viable. Petitioner maintains that the statute prescribes 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale, which can take 
account of differences in markets, but it does not permit the 
Department to simply reject a viable market, due to factors other than 
dissimilar merchandise, for the purposes of determining FMV.
    Petitioner claims that there is no evidence on the record to 
establish that third country prices are incompatible for comparison to 
U.S. prices. Petitioner questions the validity of respondents' 
statistical studies, claiming that the statistical analyses provided by 
Drs. Botero and Sykes and Lewis are unworthy of consideration because 
they exclude the impact of dumping in their price analyses. According 
to petitioner, if the Colombian and Ecuadoran growers are dumping 
during the several off-peak (non-holiday) months in the U.S. market, 
but not in other markets, such dumping would produce price changes in 
the U.S. market that are much sharper and greater than the price 
changes in Europe, thereby causing the greater volatility in the U.S. 
market identified by respondents. Petitioner adds that, because the 
Colombian and Ecuadoran imports constitute such a large percentage of 
the U.S. market and because they sell through consignment agents on a 
national basis, the supply of Colombian and Ecuadorian roses uniformly 
depresses U.S. prices whenever those imports oversupply the U.S. 
market.
    Petitioner argues that the Botero and Sykes and Lewis reports are 
further skewed because they use the prices of a single variety of red 
rose, the Visa, which it asserts is the most price sensitive. Moreover, 
these reports did not provide source documentation showing the 
composition of the Dutch auction prices relied upon. Thus, it is 
unclear how many varieties of roses were included in the comparison 
database. In addition, since Colombian and Ecuadoran roses sold on the 
Aalsmeer auction account for only a very small portion of all roses 
exported to the EU, Aalsmeer prices may not be representative of 
Colombian and Ecuadoran rose prices in the EU.
    Petitioner argues that the statements provided in the Hortimarc 
Report based on FTD data, which included traditional retail florists 
and excluded non-traditional outlets such as supermarkets, and mass 
merchandisers, ignores a significant number of spontaneous purchases 
from their analysis.
    Petitioner states that the Stern & Wechsler argument regarding the 
opposing demand strains of the U.S. and EU market are irrelevant to the 
comparison of foreign market values and U.S. prices. Petitioner 
maintains that the U.S. market is as supply driven as any other market 
during non-holiday months.
    Petitioner recognizes that in the second administrative review of 
Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, (55 FR 20491, May 17, 1990) (Flowers), 
the Department departed from its normal practice and rejected third 
country prices in favor of CV for the following three reasons: (1) 
Third country and U.S. price and volume movements were not positively 
correlated which showed that different forces operated in the relevant 
markets, in some instances, pushing prices in opposite directions; (2) 
third country sales only occurred in peak months which resulted in a 
distorted comparison of off-peak U.S. [[Page 6991]] prices to peak 
third country prices; and (3) the perishable nature of flowers and the 
inability to control short-term production resulted in ``chance'' 
sales.
    Petitioner argues that the Department's analysis of statistical 
data on the record in these investigations confirmed a positive 
correlation in prices, thus refuting the principal finding of the 
Flowers case. In fact, petitioner argues that the basis for creating an 
exception to the statutory preference for price-to-price comparisons 
was the presence of a negative correlation. Regarding volatility, 
petitioner notes that in Flowers, the Department never required that 
prices be equally volatile in each market; volatility alone does not 
require the Department to reject a price-to-price comparison. In fact, 
petitioner argues that in Flowers the Department found differences in 
volatility between the U.S. and European markets and price movement in 
opposite directions in each market.
    Regarding the second factor, petitioner observes that, unlike the 
Flowers case, third country sales of roses even occur in off-peak 
months and argues that the Department's six-month weighted average FMVs 
take into account seasonal peaks and off-peaks. Moreover, petitioner 
maintains that major flower buying holidays are the same in all markets 
and, therefore, peaks will occur at similar times in all markets.
    Finally, with regard to the issue of perishability and production 
control, petitioner maintains that respondents may control production 
by pinching back rose buds. In addition, petitioner notes that there is 
evidence on the record indicating that third country sales of roses are 
stable, some occurring as a result of negotiated standing orders and, 
therefore, there is a lesser incidence of chance sales than was present 
in Flowers. Petitioner contends that statements by respondents 
regarding a potential shift of exports from third country markets to 
U.S. markets reveals the extent to which respondents, in fact, control, 
plan, and target their rose exports to certain markets.
    Respondents claim that third country prices should be rejected in 
favor of CV because the three factors found in Flowers are present in 
these cases. With regard to the first Flowers factor, respondents quote 
empirical evidence on the record showing substantial differences in 
demand and pricing seasonality between U.S. and third country markets. 
Respondents argue that there are two principal aspects of seasonality: 
timing (i.e., the point in time at which demand peaks and valleys occur 
in seasonal cycles) and volatility (i.e., the magnitude of peaks and 
valleys). Respondents argue that, in Flowers, the Department relied on 
both differences in timing and in volatility to explain why it rejected 
third country prices. Respondents assert that in the rose industry, as 
in the flower industry: (1) The U.S. market is holiday-demand driven; 
(2) U.S. demand is not a stable consumption base because the majority 
of roses are purchased primarily as gifts; and (3) the U.S. market is 
demand driven. In contrast, respondents state that: (1) The European 
market is marked by relatively even year-round demand; (2) flower 
purchasing on a more regular basis (not tied to gift giving) is a deep 
rooted tradition in Europe; and (3) the European market is supply 
driven.
    Respondents have submitted several statistical analyses of the 
different markets which, they claim, conclusively show that the 
seasonal demand and pricing patterns are significantly different 
between the markets. Respondents point to the second Botero report and 
the Sykes & Lewis report which states that the mere presence of a price 
correlation is insufficient proof that demand patterns are equivalent. 
Respondents contend that while petitioner criticizes their statistical 
analysis, petitioner has not provided any independent correlation 
analysis regarding U.S. and third country prices.
    With regard to the second Flowers factor, access to third country 
markets, respondents claim that petitioner's own data rebut the 
contention that respondents have substantial continuous access to third 
country markets because there are no Colombian and Ecuadorian imports 
of roses in at least one month for every country for which petitioner 
has provided data. Respondents assert that petitioner's claim that 
Colombian and Ecuadorian production is planned with third countries in 
mind, and that roses are sold at the same fixed price over a period of 
time as a result of a pre-negotiated arrangement, is a misunderstanding 
of the facts on the record.
    In addition, respondents claim that combining third country markets 
would not rectify the gaps created by the absence of sales in all 
months in individual markets. Respondents note that adding two markets 
with partial year sales is still tantamount to using only peak prices 
for foreign market value.
    With regard to the third Flowers factor, respondents claim the 
control and perishability factor relied upon by the Department in the 
Flowers case is equally applicable to roses. Respondents cite to 
portions of the Department's Roses preliminary determination where the 
Department noted that there are substantial similarities between 
flowers and roses in perishability and short-term lack of production 
control. Respondents also cite to the first Tayama report which states 
that roses are even more perishable than fresh cut flowers.
    Respondents claim that petitioner oversimplifies their argument 
regarding seasonality by neglecting to view all aspects of the Flowers 
exception: the unique combination of differences in seasonality between 
U.S. and third country markets for a highly perishable product for 
which production cannot be controlled in the short term. Thus, 
respondents maintain that the Roses case is a logical extension of the 
Flowers case.
DOC Position
    The Department agrees with respondents. In the preliminary 
determination, we rejected respondents' request to use CV as the basis 
for FMV because we determined that the record at that time did not 
support the application of the Flowers' precedent. Since the 
preliminary determination, a considerable amount of new information has 
been submitted. Based on our review of this new information, we have 
determined that the records in these cases warrant rejection of third 
country sales in favor of CV. See the January 26, 1995, Decision 
Memorandum pertaining to third country versus constructed value from 
the Team to Barbara Stafford for a more detailed discussion of this 
issue.
    Information on the record establishes that the three factors 
identified by the Department in Flowers as supporting the use of CV are 
satisfied in this case. First, the market for roses in the U.S. differs 
significantly from the markets in third countries. For example, as in 
Flowers, price and quantity within the United States' rose market are 
positively correlated; however, the price and quantity within Europe, 
Canada, and Argentina are negatively correlated.
    Similarly, the U.S. market for roses, like the U.S. market for 
flowers, is more volatile in terms of price and quantity movements than 
the markets in third countries markets; the European per capita 
consumption of flowers is four to ten times greater than the United 
States, and Colombian and Ecuadorian producers have, in general, 
limited access to the main third country markets, i.e., the Dutch 
auction. Thus, the differences in the rose markets are 
[[Page 6992]] similar to the differences that existed in Flowers.
    The second Flowers factor we considered was whether a comparison of 
third country sales to U.S. sales would require comparisons of low-
price U.S. sales in off-peak months with high- price third country 
sales in peak months, or vice versa. In the preliminary determination, 
we found that this factor was not present in these investigations 
because: (1) There were sufficient third country sales in each month of 
the POI (when markets were combined); and, (2) using two six-month FMV 
periods reduced distortion caused by price comparisons involving peak 
and non-peak periods.
    For purposes of this final determination, we have determined that 
use of third country prices could result in off-peak U.S. sales being 
compared with peak third country sales. While six- month averages 
ameliorate potential distortions, almost all of the respondents do not 
have third country sales in every month of the POI. It is only by 
combining markets that respondents have sales in each month of the POI. 
If we were to use third country prices as the basis for FMV, prices 
during peak periods in one third country could be combined with prices 
during peak periods in another third country. These peak prices would 
then be compared to both peak and non-peak periods in the United 
States. We find that this factor supports use of CV in these cases, 
albeit to a somewhat lesser degree than in Flowers.
    The third Flowers factor we considered was the extreme 
perishability of roses--i.e., the inability to control short-term 
production--and the resultant ``chance'' element to sales. As noted in 
our preliminary determinations, there are substantial similarities 
between the subject merchandise in these investigations and Flowers: 
(1) Roses, like flowers, are extremely perishable; (2) rose growers 
have relatively minor control over short-term production; (3) rose 
production is also affected by exogenous factors (e.g., weather, 
disease, etc.) like other flowers; and 4) roses cannot be stored and we 
note that there are only very minor alternative uses (e.g., drying).
    In conclusion, we have determined that the factors that led the 
Department use CV instead of third country prices in Flowers are 
present in these investigations. Therefore, we have adopted CV as the 
basis for comparison with U.S. prices.

Comments Pertaining to Related Party Commissions

Comment 7: Related Party Commissions

    Petitioner requests that commissions paid to consignment agents 
should be deducted from USP even where consignees are related parties. 
Specifically, petitioners argue that: (1) The statute directs us to 
deduct commissions from USP in ESP situations, without discretion to 
disregard U.S. commissions in related party transactions; (2) in 
Timken, the court recognized that the statute required a deduction when 
a U.S. importer was paid commissions, as opposed to earning 
``profits;'' (3) the statute should be followed, regardless of the fact 
that commissions were not deducted in Flowers; and (4) we should deduct 
U.S. indirect selling expenses if such expenses exceed the related 
consignee's commissions, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1677a(e)(2).
    Respondents claim that the Department's treatment in the 
preliminary determination of related party sales commissions is 
invalid. They argue that deducting the related importer's commission 
from U.S. price has the effect of deducting the importer's profit, 
which the Department does not have the authority to do. The Department 
should deduct the importer's actual selling expenses rather than intra 
company transfers. Respondent's argue that the Department's approach is 
inconsistent with past practice since related party commissions have 
never been treated as a direct selling expense, but rather have been 
collapsed in the past for the purposes of determining U.S. price and 
expenses. Moreover, respondents assert that the Department's statute 
and regulations do not authorize the Department to deduct the higher of 
related party commissions or related party actual expenses. Respondents 
claim that in selectively choosing deductions of commissions or actual 
expenses, the Department fails to account for the fact that the 
commission it treats as a cost is also sales related income to the 
related importer. Respondents maintain that the Department should 
ignore the sales commissions paid between related parties on ESP sales, 
regardless of whether such commissions are at arm's length, and treat 
as U.S. indirect selling expenses the importer's share of operating and 
selling expenses allocable to the exporter's subject sales.
DOC Position
    The difference between a related consignee's commission and the 
related consignee's U.S. indirect selling expenses is equal to the 
related consignee's profit. The Department does not deduct profit from 
USP in ESP transactions because the law does not allow it. 19 CFR 
353.41(e)(1) and (2) do, however, instruct us to make adjustments in 
ESP situations for commissions and expenses generally incurred by or 
for the account of the exporter in selling the merchandise.
    With respect to treatment of related party commissions paid in the 
U.S., we have in the past looked to the definition of ``exporter'' 
which provides that related party importers are to be collapsed with, 
and treated as part of, the exporter. 19 U.S.C. 1677(13). In this 
context, it is inappropriate to treat a commission the exporter has 
paid to itself as an expense. The expense is the actual costs incurred 
by or for the account of the exporter.
    In LMI-Le Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 
455, 459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (LMI), the CAFC indicated that related party 
commissions can and should be adjusted for if the commissions are at 
arm's-length and are directly related to the sales under review.1 
By implication, an arm's-length commission includes the actual indirect 
selling expenses incurred by the commissionnaire and the 
commissionnaire's profits. Thus, LMI allows us to deduct the profits 
that are implicit in the commission. The facts in LMI, however, are 
distinguishable from the facts in these investigations. In LMI, the 
Court directed the Department to adjust for sales commissions paid to a 
related subsidiary of the respondent in the home market. The sales on 
which the commissions were paid in the home market were purchase price-
type transactions made with the assistance of the related party selling 
agent. The issue of how to treat any selling expenses incurred by the 
related party selling agent in addition to commissions earned by that 
related party selling agent did not arise in LMI.

     1In Coated Groundwood Paper from Finland, 56 FR 56363 
(November 4, 1991), which was subsequent to LMI, we developed 
guidelines to determine whether commissions paid to related parties, 
either in the United States or in the foreign market, are at arm's-
length. If, based on the guidelines, we found commissions to be at 
arm's-length, we stated that we would make an adjustment for such 
commissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the instant investigations, the sales on which the commissions 
were paid are ESP transactions where, because the importer of the 
merchandise is related to the exporter, we collapse the two pursuant to 
19 U.S.C. 1677(13) and base USP on the sale to the first unrelated 
party. In contrast to LMI, therefore, the [[Page 6993]] producer and 
its related party selling agent in these investigations are collapsed. 
Thus, the commission represents an intracompany transfer of funds. 
Under these circumstances, our past practice of ignoring intracompany 
transfers is still applicable.
    Furthermore, ESP transactions are fundamentally different from 
purchase price transactions in that, with respect to ESP transactions, 
19 U.S.C. 1677a(e), specifically allows for deductions of indirect 
expenses. In contrast, with respect to purchase price transactions, 19 
U.S.C. 1677a(d) only allows an adjustment for indirect expenses when 
there are commissions in one of the two markets. Therefore, when 
commissions are paid in an ESP situation, the opportunity for double 
counting exists; this problem does not arise in a purchase price 
situation like the one reviewed by the Court in LMI.
    Whether the sales involved are purchase price or ESP, the 
Department's goal is to derive a reliable USP by subtracting actual 
expenses from actual sales prices. A commission paid by the exporter to 
its collapsed related importer is not an expense incurred by the 
exporter; rather the actual expenses incurred by the exporter are the 
indirect selling expenses of the related consignee.
    At the preliminary determination, we determined that related party 
commissions were directly related to the sales under consideration. 
However, we agree with respondents and, for the final determination, 
considered commissions an intracompany transfer. We have therefore, 
deducted only the amount of U.S. indirect selling expense for all 
companies with related party commissions.

Comments Pertaining to Accounting

Comment 8: Inflation Adjusted Depreciation and Amortization

    Petitioner argues that the Department should compute respondents' 
depreciation expense based on asset values which, in accordance with 
Colombian GAAP, have been adjusted to reflect the effects of inflation. 
Petitioner notes that respondents computed depreciation charges for 
rose production costs based on the historical cost of the underlying 
fixed assets. Petitioner maintains that because of the effects of 
inflation on prices, respondents' methodology inappropriately matches 
historical depreciation charges based on past price levels with 
revenues generated from the sale of roses at current price levels.
    Petitioner notes that in past cases involving hyperinflationary 
economies, the Department has corrected for the effects of inflation by 
computing cost of production based on respondent's replacement costs. 
Petitioner argues that although the POI inflation rates in Colombia did 
not meet the Department's normal hyperinflation threshold, the annual 
rate of inflation nevertheless has been so substantial as to cause the 
government to adopt accounting standards that require an adjustment for 
inflation. Thus, according to petitioner, the Department must correct 
respondents' reported depreciation expense in order to avoid distorting 
the cost of rose production.
    Respondents claim that the Department should accept their submitted 
rose production costs without taking into account the effects of the 
inflation adjustment on depreciation expense. Respondents argue that, 
although the inflation adjustment may result in additional costs in 
their financial statements, these are not actual, historical costs. 
Instead, the inflation adjusted costs are ``phantom'' costs required by 
tax law, but not specifically addressed under GAAP.
    Respondents maintain that the purpose of the tax law was to 
generate tax revenues for the government, because any write-up of fixed 
assets due to inflation results in additional income that must be 
recognized in a firm's financial statements. Respondents contend that 
if the Department determines that it must include the effects of the 
fixed asset inflation adjustment in respondents' rose CV, then it also 
must reduce CV by the amount of financial statement income generated by 
the adjustment. Respondents note that such income is directly related 
to production and, thus, there is no basis for failing to offset costs 
if the inflation adjustment is included in CV.
    Additionally, respondents claim that the Department already 
effectively makes an inflation adjustment through the use of monthly 
exchange rates in its computer program. Respondents state that the 
exchange rate is related to differences in the two countries rates of 
inflation, and the use of such exchange rates has an effect equivalent 
to making the year-end inflation adjustment.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner that respondents' failure to follow their 
normal accounting practice of adjusting depreciation and amortization 
expenses for the effects of inflation distorts rose production costs 
for purposes of our antidumping analysis. The exclusion of the 
inflation adjustment results in costs which are not reflective of 
current price levels and thus produces an improper matching of revenues 
and expenses. Therefore, we have revised the submitted COP and CV 
figures to reflect inflation- adjusted depreciation and amortization 
expenses based on the growers' normal accounting practices.
    We disagree with respondents' claim that the Department's use of 
monthly exchange rates effectively makes an inflation adjustment, 
because the exchange rates are being applied to costs which are 
reported in understated foreign currency. To avoid distortion in 
production costs, we have used annual average constructed value figures 
and converted them to U.S. dollars using a weighted-average exchange 
rate based on the monthly volume of roses sold by each grower.
    We also disagree with respondents' assertion that income resulting 
from the inflation adjustment is directly related to production and 
should be applied as an offset to financial expense. This annual 
revaluation of non-monetary assets does not represent income during the 
POI. Instead, it merely reflects an increase to respondent's financial 
statement equity due to the restatement of non-monetary assets to 
account for inflation.

Comment 9: Statutory General Expenses and Profit

    Petitioner claims that statutory general expenses and profit should 
be based on third country sales, since third country sales and third 
country profit and general expenses would be used as a basis for FMV 
when home market sales are not available.
    Respondents maintain that the facts of this case and the statute 
require that Department calculate profit on the basis of home market 
sales, particularly since the Department made a finding in its 
preliminary determination that home market sales of export quality 
roses were made in the ordinary course of trade. In addition, 
respondents note that where the Department used third country price 
comparisons in its preliminary determination, if in the final 
determination the Department chooses to reject third country prices in 
the final determination in favor of CV, it cannot use annual average 
third country profit margins in calculating CV, because this would be 
the equivalent of comparing an annual average third country price to a 
monthly average U.S. price.
DOC Position
    In calculating CV, we used selling expenses based on U.S. 
surrogates and the eight percent statutory minimum for profit where 
there was not a viable home market for export quality roses. 
[[Page 6994]] Where there was a viable, but dissimilar, third country 
markets, we used U.S. surrogates and the eight percent statutory profit 
because we have determined that third country markets do not provide an 
appropriate basis for foreign market value. See Comment 6 above.
    We used U.S. selling expenses as a surrogate even though certain 
producers had viable home markets for culls which are included in the 
general class or kind of merchandise.
    19 U.S.C. 1677b(e)(1)(B) states that the CV of imported merchandise 
shall include an amount for general expenses and profit equal to that 
usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general class or 
kind as the merchandise under consideration which are made by producers 
in the country of exportation, in the usual commercial quantities and 
in the ordinary course of trade, except that--
    (i) The amount for general expenses shall not be less than 10 
percent of the cost as defined in subparagraph (A), and (ii) the amount 
for profit shall not be less than 8 percent of the sum of such general 
expenses and cost.
    19 CFR 353.50(a) states that if FMV is based on CV, the Secretary 
will calculate the FMV by adding general expenses and profit usually 
reflected in sales of merchandise of the same class or kind of 
merchandise.
    However, in the final determination of Certain Granite Products 
from Italy, 53 FR 27187, 27191-2 (July 19, 1988)(comment 15), the 
Department stated that, due to the uniqueness of one of the such or 
similar categories of merchandise, there was no comparability between 
sales in the home market and sales in the United States. Therefore, the 
Department used the U.S. selling expenses as a surrogate in computing 
CV instead of home market selling expenses. As in Certain Granite 
Products from Italy, we find that, in the instant investigations, culls 
are not representative of the merchandise sold in the United States, as 
these products are by definition not export-quality.

Comment 10: Allocation of Production Costs to Cull Roses

    Respondents argue that the Department incorrectly calculated CV by 
requiring growers to allocate production costs only to export quality 
roses, thereby assigning no costs to cull roses. Respondents note that 
because cull roses are included in the class or kind of merchandise, 
they should be allocated a share of production costs equal to that of 
export quality roses. Respondents point out that the Department has 
never held that a product covered by an investigation should be treated 
as a byproduct having no cost. Respondents also argue that the Federal 
Circuit in Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 965 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 
defined byproducts as ``secondary products not subject to 
investigation.''
    Petitioner asserts that cull roses should be categorized as 
byproducts to which, from an accounting standpoint, no production costs 
should be allocated. Petitioner claims that an appropriate measure for 
determining whether a specific product represents a byproduct or 
coproduct is to determine if the production process would still be 
performed if the product in question was the only one produced. 
According to petitioner, no rose grower would establish operations 
solely for the purpose of growing culls for sale and, therefore, cull 
roses are unmistakably byproducts. Petitioner notes that ITA has 
consistently and correctly treated cull roses as byproducts, with 
revenues earned from their sale being properly recognized as other 
income and, thus, deducted from the cost of producing export quality 
roses.
DOC Position
    We disagree with respondents' claim that CV was calculated 
incorrectly by not allocating any production costs to cull roses. When 
determining how to allocate costs among joint products, the Department 
normally relies upon generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to 
prescribe an appropriate cost allocation methodology. One of the 
factors used to assess the proper accounting treatment of jointly-
produced products examines the value of each specific product relative 
to the value of all products produced during, or as a result of, the 
process of manufacturing the main product or products. In this regard, 
the distinguishing feature of a byproduct is its relatively minor sales 
value in comparison to that of the major product or products produced.
    The Department's general practice in agricultural cases has been to 
offset the total cost of production with revenue earned from the sale 
of the reject agricultural products. The cultivation costs, net of any 
recovery from byproducts, are then allocated over the quantity of non-
reject product actually sold. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Colombia, 52 FR 6844 (March 5, 1987); Fresh Cut Flowers from Peru, 52 
FR 7003 (March 6, 1987); Fall-Harvested Round White Potatoes, 48 FR 
51673 (November 10, 1983); Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 49 FR 30767 
(August 1, 1984).
    In Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores v. United States, 704 F 
Supp. 1114, 1125-26 (CIT 1989), the Court found that ``[c]ulls were 
often disposed of as waste, or if saleable, were sold for low prices in 
the local market. ITA's treatment of non-export quality flowers as a 
byproduct was supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates 
that cull value was relatively low and that the production of culls was 
unavoidable. These both have been recognized by ITA in the past as 
indicia of byproduct status.'' The CIT further noted, ``[c]ull value, 
if determinable, should be deducted from cost of production and 
production costs should not be allocated to culls.''
    For each respondent in this investigation, the total revenue 
generated from the sale of cull roses was minimal when compared to the 
revenue generated from the sale of export quality roses. Other facts 
concerning the production and sale of cull roses are also consistent 
with those found in the investigation and subsequent administrative 
reviews of Flowers. We therefore find that it is appropriate to treat 
cull roses sold in the home market as a byproduct of the production of 
export quality roses. This treatment is consistent with the 
Department's previous practice of accounting for culls as a byproduct 
in the calculation of COP and CV.
    Finally, we disagree with respondents' argument that the inclusion 
of cull roses in the class or kind of merchandise compels the 
Department to use a particular cost accounting methodology. A decision 
that a particular product is, or is not, within the scope of a 
proceeding does not dictate, or necessarily have any relationship to, 
the selection of the particular cost accounting methodology that must 
be applied in the determination of COP and CV.
    Unlike respondents, we do not read the Federal Appeals Court's 
decision in Ipsco as standing for the proposition that in all 
circumstances a byproduct for accounting purposes cannot be within the 
class or kind of merchandise as that term is defined under the Act. 
Moreover, as discussed above, our decision in this regard has been 
explicitly upheld by the CIT.

Comment 11: CV--Interest Expense

    Respondents argue that the Department grossly overstated each 
respondents' net interest expense in calculating CV by using total 
company-wide interest expense instead of the expense allocable to rose 
production. Respondents request that the Department correct its 
preliminary [[Page 6995]] calculations in line 38 of the CV tables, and 
using the allocated per unit interest expense calculated on the 
spreadsheet.
    Petitioner agrees with respondents that net interest expenses were 
potentially overstated in the preliminary determination and ITA should 
allocate interest expenses on a sales dollar basis to roses and then to 
rose stems, provided that interest expenses reported were in fact 
reported with respect to all sales of all rose types to all markets.
DOC Position
    We agree that for some respondents we incorrectly assigned total 
company-wide financial expenses only to roses. For purposes of the 
final determination, we allocated net financial expenses to roses and 
non-subject merchandise using one of the following methodologies, each 
of which we consider reasonable: cultivated area, cost of sales or cost 
of cultivation. We computed a per stem financial cost by dividing the 
net financial expenses related to roses by the total export quality of 
stems sold.

Comment 12: CV--U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses

    Respondents allege that the Department incorrectly included U.S. 
indirect selling expenses incurred by respondents' related importers in 
its calculation of constructed value. Respondents claim that including 
these expenses in constructed value artificially inflated the FMV, 
since these expenses would never have been incurred to sell roses in 
the home market. In addition, respondents object to the Department's 
calculation of an eight percent profit on these expenses, while at the 
same time deducting related party commissions, and thereby all profit 
earned by the related importer, from U.S. prices. Respondents hold that 
the Department should include only all selling expenses incurred in 
Colombia and Ecuador in its calculation of CV.
    Petitioner claims that the Department should include in constructed 
value direct and indirect selling expenses equal to those expenses 
incurred in third country markets, unless such markets are not viable. 
And, to the extent that the Department deems home market sales to be 
within the ordinary course of trade, and in the event that the home 
market for any given respondent was viable, then the Department should 
add home market selling expenses to constructed value. Petitioner 
states that, in the absence of selling expenses from either the home or 
third country market, the Department's practice is to add U.S. selling 
expenses in computing SG&A.
DOC Position
    For those companies with viable home markets, we used home market 
indirect selling expenses. For those companies without viable home 
markets we used U.S. indirect selling expenses as a surrogate. See 
Comment 9 above. Respondents' objection to deduction of related party 
commissions is addressed in Comment 7 above.

Comment 13: Per Unit CV in Dollars

    Respondents argue that the Department's methodology used to obtain 
the per unit CV in dollars produces a distorted, declining per unit 
dollar CV. Respondents note that the Department's method involves 
converting annual average per unit foreign-denominated costs to monthly 
per unit dollar figures using the monthly exchange rate, which in part 
reflects a relatively high inflation rate. Respondents claim that in 
order to properly obtain the average per unit CV, the Department should 
first convert each month's total foreign-denominated costs using that 
month's exchange rate, and then sum these monthly dollar costs for the 
period. Next, the total dollar costs should be divided by the total 
quantity of roses sold to obtain the average per unit CV in dollars for 
the period.
    Petitioner does not object to respondents' request for 
modifications in the Department's methodology, although petitioner 
suggests that such modifications are unnecessary. If modified however, 
petitioner argues that it is inappropriate to apply a foreign-dominated 
interest rate in order to calculate imputed credit costs, unless the 
exchange rate is also adjusted for currency devaluation.
DOC Position
    We agree that in this case the Department's previous methodology 
used to obtain per unit constructed value in U.S. dollars did not 
provide an accurate result. In order to avoid distortion, we have 
converted home market cost in local currency to U.S. dollars using the 
annual average exchange rate.

Comment 14: Home Market Price Cost Test

    Respondents maintain that the Department's sales below cost test 
does not test whether a particular product is sold below its cost of 
production. Respondents argue that the Department's normal methodology 
is to compare prices to model-specific COPs. Because respondents were 
only able to supply the Department with average COP information 
representing an entire range of rose production, they argue that the 
Department should compare annual average COP figures to average home 
market prices of all varieties and stem lengths.
    Additionally, respondents state that, to account for price 
seasonality, the Department must use annual home market average prices 
to properly test whether home market sales prices permit the recovery 
of costs in a reasonable time. Respondents refer to the Botero Report 
as evidence that the unusual seasonal prices of roses allow for ``below 
average costs over periods of time, including months, that do not cover 
a full price cycle.''
    Petitioner argues that the court has rejected the comparison of 
production costs with average home market prices. See, Timken Co. v. 
United States, 673 F. Supp. 495, 516-17 (CIT 1987).
DOC Position
    While it is our normal practice in determining sales below cost to 
compare the price of each sale in the home market to the cost of 
production (COP) of that product during the period under investigation, 
in these investigations we were not able to do so because the 
respondents do not segregate their cost data by rose type, variety and 
stem length. As a result, we determined that to compare one yearly COP 
(the POI in these investigations is one year), which combines all 
export quality rose costs to prices for each variety of export quality 
roses would not be appropriate. See Comment 5 above. Instead, we 
combined prices of home market sales for all varieties on a monthly 
basis to our annual COP, in conforming with our modified cost test for 
agricultural products, as discussed below in Comment 15.
    Although respondents urge the Department to combine individual 
sales prices for all export quality roses in the home market on a 
yearly basis to compare to the yearly COP calculation for export 
quality roses, respondents have not persuaded us that such a radical 
departure from our procedure is warranted in these circumstances. As 
discussed in Comment 15, the Department has a specific test for 
determining whether or not sales are below cost that encompasses 
recovery of costs within a reasonable time, which we have applied here.

Comment 15: 50-90-10  Test

    Respondents maintain that the Department originally intended to 
change its 10-90-10 test to a 50/50 test whereby, if less than half of 
all sales were below cost, then all sales should be used in creating 
weighted-average [[Page 6996]] FMVs, and if half or more of the sales 
were found to be sold below cost, then home market sales would be 
rejected in their entirety and FMV would be based on CV.
    Petitioner maintains that respondents have misrepresented the 
Department's past practice and ignored judicial precedent. Petitioner 
maintains that the current 50-90-10 test by which the Department 
removes from consideration ``significant'' quantities of sales made 
below COP but uses those sales made above cost, is correct. Petitioner 
maintains that the courts supported the Department's use of remaining 
above-cost sales as sufficient for FMV in Timken Co. v. United States, 
673 F. Supp. 495, 516-517 (CIT 1987), and that the basic principle 
applies to all products.
DOC Position
    We disagree with respondents. The Department has an established 
practice which takes into account the realities of selling perishable 
agricultural products. In Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables from Mexico, 45 FR 20512, 
20515 (March 24, 1980), after examining the nature of sales of 
vegetables, the Department determined that it was a regular business 
practice to make a relatively high number of sales of the subject 
merchandise below cost because of the perishability of the product, 
which rapidly ages into non-salable merchandise. As a result, the 
Department determined that were it to apply the normal below cost test 
used for nonperishable products, i.e., the 10-90-10 test, this would 
not fairly reflect the economic realities of the fresh vegetable 
industry. As a result, the Department concluded that it would permit 
all sales at below cost to remain in the FMV comparison unless more 
than 50 percent were found to be below cost.
    This modified test was clarified in a review of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico, 58 FR 1794, 1795 (January 17, 1991), wherein the Department 
explicitly stated that the test to be applied for determining sales 
below cost for perishable agricultural products was a 50-90-10 test, 
i.e., if between 50 and 90 percent of home market sales consisted of 
prices below cost, then only the below cost sales were disregarded, 
while if over 90 percent of sales were below cost then all sales in the 
home market were disregarded. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Review: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 FR 1795, 1795 
(January 17, 1991).
    This modified test still remains our current practice and 
respondent's rationale for the adoption of a straight 50-50 test is an 
unmerited modification. Were we to adopt respondents' either/or 
position, i.e., if less than 50 percent are below cost we will use all 
sales, and if more than 50 percent we will disregard all sales, then we 
would, in effect, be concluding that 11 percent of widget sales above 
cost are sufficient to be the basis for FMV but that 49 percent of rose 
sales above cost are insufficient. This is a an illogical result, which 
we are not prepared to accept.

Comment 16: Duty Deposit Rate--Roses Shipped But Not Sold

    Respondents urge the Department to adjust the deposit rate to 
reflect the fact that many roses imported into the U.S. perish or are 
destroyed prior to sale. To avoid over collecting duty deposits on 
roses that never reach the U.S. market, and since there is no way of 
distinguishing between roses that will be sold and roses that will be 
destroyed at the time of entry, respondents argue that the duty deposit 
rate should be adjusted downward to reflect the quantity of roses 
shipped to the United States, but not sold. This practice is being used 
in Flowers. Respondents suggest the Department multiply any ad valorem 
rates it calculates by the ratio of total quantity sold divided by 
total quantity shipped, as reported by each respondent.
    Petitioner states that all imports at the time of importation are 
potentially for sale and, therefore, must bear the appropriate cash 
deposit rate. Because the percentage of roses that will go unsold 
varies due to season, weather, problems in transportation, etc., 
petitioner argues that there is no accurate way to adjust for this 
potential impact.
    Additionally, petitioner states that if the Department does adjust 
the duty deposit rate to account for roses shipped but not sold, than 
it is appropriate to adjust the deposit rate to reflect the fact that 
values entered by Customs are arbitrarily established on consignment 
entries. Petitioner argues that the use of the calculated USP to derive 
a cash deposit rate may bear no relation to the value used by Customs 
for collecting duties. Therefore, petitioner believes that the duty 
deposit rate should be adjusted upwards so that the duty amount 
collected reflects the potentially uncollectible duty deposits 
calculated in the final determination.
DOC Position
    We disagree with respondent that the duty deposit rate should be 
adjusted for roses shipped but not sold. We do, however, agree with 
respondent, in part, that such adjustment is appropriate for assessment 
purposes, which are distinct from duty deposit purposes. In the case 
cited by respondents, Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia 55 FR 20491 (May 
17, 1990), the Department indicated that it would make such an 
adjustment in preparing assessment instructions to the Customs Service. 
The Department did not make such an adjustment to the duty deposit 
rates in that case and has not done so in subsequent reviews.
    We agree with petitioners that all imports at the time of 
importation are potentially for sale, and that the percentage of roses 
which go unsold varies with the seasons. Moreover, this percentage will 
likely vary with each producer and reseller. Thus, any adjustment 
contemplated would be speculative. It is preferable to wait until the 
Department prepares assessment instructions on entries covered by these 
deposit rates and then make such an adjustment based on the actual 
experience of the affected companies.

Comment 17: Cash Deposits--The Department's Sampling Technique

    Respondents claim that the all others cash deposit rate calculated 
by the Department is not based on a representative sample of the 
Colombian rose exporting population--it merely reflects the experience 
of 16 of the largest exporters. Furthermore, according to respondents, 
the all others rate disregards the representativeness of such 
experience. Respondents maintain that this is inconsistent with the 
Department's statutory requirement that any averages and samples used 
must be representative of the whole. See 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(b).
DOC Position
    We disagree with respondents. The Department's normal practice, in 
accordance its regulations, is to select that number of the largest 
exporters of the subject merchandise needed to represent 60 percent of 
the imports into the United States from the country under 
investigation. Due to the large number of companies needed to reach 60 
percent of imports in this investigation and the administrative burden 
it would put on the Department's resources to investigate these 
companies, the Department selected the 16 largest exporters 
representing over 40 percent of the imports into the United States. See 
the May 2, 1994, Decision Memorandum from the Team to Barbara Stafford.
    The methodology used by the Department maximized its coverage of 
[[Page 6997]] imports into the United States. The technique of 
selecting the largest exporters was employed in the Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sweaters Wholly or in 
Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber from Taiwan, 55 FR 17779 (April 27, 
1990). The other suggested sampling methods, stratified and random, 
were not selected due to the lack of sufficient industry-wide 
information on the universe of Colombian and Ecuadorian rose growers 
(approximately 400 companies in Colombia and 100 companies in Ecuador). 
The collection and analysis of data to determine an appropriate 
sampling technique was not reasonably within the power of the 
Department to undertake. Therefore, we have chosen the most 
representative sample under the circumstances.

Comment 18: Duty Deposit Rate for Volunteer Companies

    Respondents argue that the due process clause of the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precludes the Department from 
requiring cash deposits with respect to companies that the Department 
refused to investigate. Respondents cite Kemira Fibres Oy v. United 
States, Slip Op. 94-120 (CIT July 26, 1994) to support their argument 
that due process is required in antidumping proceedings. Such a course, 
according to respondents, would represent an unconstitutional 
deprivation of property without due process of law. Respondents 
maintain that the cash deposit rate must be set at zero, and that all 
cash deposits paid to date should be refunded, and any bonds posted 
should be lifted, for all companies ready and willing to participate, 
but not chosen by the Department.
    Petitioner also refers to Kemira Fibres to support its argument 
that procedural due process guarantees do not require trial-type 
proceedings in all administrative determinations. Additionally, 
petitioner maintains that, as long as the Department adheres to the 
procedures mandated by Congress and implemented in the Department's 
regulations, then the Department has afforded interested parties the 
process due. These regulations, according to petitioner, allow 
interested parties the right to appear and submit their views on the 
proceedings of an investigation, but they do not require the Department 
to investigate every company that requests a company-specific margin.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner. Although it is the Department's practice 
to accept voluntary respondents when we have the administrative 
resources to do so, the Department's regulations do not require that we 
accept responses from voluntary respondents. Furthermore, pursuant to 
19 CFR 353.14(c), the Department is required to investigate exclusion 
requests only ``to the extent practicable in each investigation.''
    Due to the large number of producers and limited administrative 
resources, the Department was unable to follow its standard practice of 
investigating 60 percent of the exports of roses into the United 
States. Accepting these voluntary respondents and investigating 
exclusion requests would have reduced the number of ``mandatory'' 
respondents we could select. Because the Department is not required to 
investigate all voluntary respondents and requests for exclusion, and 
because the Department followed its regulations and policy concerning 
voluntary respondents and exclusion requests, we have afforded 
interested parties the process due.

Comment 19: Amortization and Preproduction Costs

    Petitioner argues that the Department should not allow respondents 
to amortize rose plant costs over periods which exceed the useful lives 
of rose plants, as reported in respondent's normal accounting records.
    Petitioner asserts that amortization of rose plants and 
preproduction costs should be based on the methodology used by 
respondents to report their production costs in accordance with normal 
corporate accounting practices and pursuant to Colombian generally 
accepted accounting principles (``GAAP''). Petitioner states that it is 
the Department's well-established and longstanding practice to prohibit 
respondents' departures from normal practices, except in those 
instances where those normal accounting practices would distort 
production costs.
    Petitioner claims that the useful lives normally used by these 
companies are preferable, as they are a function of each grower's plant 
varieties and cultivation methods. Petitioner states that respondents 
have not submitted any evidence to establish that their normal 
accounting practices result in a material distortion of costs or that 
the useful lives normally used by these companies are unreasonably 
short. Petitioner also claims that the normal practices of these 
respondents reflect the preferred cycle for replanting roses.
    Respondents claim that the reported rose plant and preproduction 
costs should be accepted by the Department, since they accurately 
reflect production costs during the POI and achieve a proper matching 
of costs and revenues. Respondents contend that their normal financial 
accounting practices are designed to minimize their taxable income. 
According to respondents, Colombian tax law (which forms the basis for 
the growers' GAAP accounting practices) is relatively unrestrictive and 
allows for the amortization of rose plant and preproduction costs over 
periods that are in some instances far less than the useful lives of 
the underlying assets.
    Respondents assert that the amortization expense recorded in their 
financial statements should not be used by the Department, because 
these amounts do not reflect the amortization of capital expenses over 
the appropriate period, resulting in a distortion of the production 
costs of the subject merchandise. Respondents state that evidence on 
the record regarding their growing practices, plant varieties and 
cultivation conditions confirms that the useful life of rose plants in 
Colombia is at least eight to ten years, although such costs are 
commonly amortized over shorter periods in respondents' books. As 
support for their position, respondents cite Fresh Kiwifruit from New 
Zealand, 57 Fed. Reg. 13695, 13703 (1992), where the Department 
required growers to amortize the cost of kiwi fruit vines over the 
useful lives of the plants despite the fact that, for financial 
accounting purposes, the cost of the vines had been recognized as an 
expense in the year of purchase.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondents. The Department typically requires 
respondents to report production costs pursuant to their home country 
GAAP. The use of home country accounting principles provides the 
Department with an objective standard by which to measure costs, while 
allowing respondents a predictable basis on which to compute those 
costs. However, the Department may reject the use of home country GAAP 
as the basis for calculating production costs if it is determined that 
the accounting principles at issue unreasonably distort or misstate 
costs for purposes of an antidumping analysis. In these instances, the 
Department may use alternative cost calculation methodologies that more 
accurately capture the costs incurred during the period of 
investigation or review.
    In determining whether a respondent's normal GAAP depreciation 
policies are distortive for purposes of our antidumping analysis, it is 
clearly not the Department's purpose to judge the reasonableness of 
each asset's depreciable life on an asset-by-asset [[Page 6998]] basis. 
Under most circumstances, the depreciable life of an asset is based on 
the purchaser's best estimate of the asset's economic life at the time 
of purchase. Obviously, there are any number of events, unforeseen at 
the time of purchase, that could serve to lengthen or shorten the 
asset's actual physical life. Typically, the Department does not 
attempt to account for the fact that estimations of useful life are not 
always accurate.
    In this case, however, we found that Colombian accounting 
principles permitted growers significant latitude in determining the 
depreciable lives of their rose plants and in accounting for 
preproduction costs. Moreover, respondents provided reasonable evidence 
to support the fact that the useful lives recorded in financial 
statements were, in many cases, shorter than the plants' economic 
useful lives. The growers' decision to amortize their rose plant costs 
over shortened periods appears to have been driven largely by Colombian 
tax considerations rather than by the basic accounting principle of 
matching costs and revenues. Therefore, we have accepted respondents' 
rose plant and preproduction amortization expense calculations for 
purposes of computing COP and CV, provided that they had correctly 
capitalized and amortized these same assets from previous years.

U.S. Price Adjustments

Comment 20: Invoice Discrepancies

    Petitioner argues that the Department should reject or adjust U.S. 
prices to account for discrepancies between invoice amounts and 
``registro'' prices (the price that appears on official Colombian 
export documentation) recorded in respondents' books and records.
    Respondents argue that there is no merit to petitioner's suggestion 
that declared Colombian registro prices should be used rather than 
actual U.S. selling prices. Respondents explain that registro prices 
represent the growers best estimate of prices. Moreover, respondents 
assert that registro prices do not meet the statutory definition of 
U.S. price since they are not the price at which merchandise is sold or 
agreed to be sold in the United States, nor are they the price at which 
merchandise is purchased.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondents. Due to the volatility of the rose market 
and the fact that sales are made to unrelated consignees, it is 
impossible for respondents to accurately record U.S. price at the time 
of export, thus requiring estimates on export documentation, i.e., 
registro prices. The amounts listed on the registros do not meet the 
Department's definition of U.S. price.

Comment 21: Interest Rate

    Respondents claim that it is against Department practice and 
prevailing case law (United Engineering & Forging v. United States, 
LMI-La Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States) to apply a 
Colombian peso interest rate to a U.S. dollar account receivable in 
calculating U.S. imputed credit expenses. Respondents argue that, in 
accordance with Class 150 Stainless Steel Threaded Pipe Fittings from 
Taiwan, 59 Fed Reg. 38432 (1994), the Department should have used the 
lowest interest rate at which respondents borrowed or to which 
respondents had access, namely the U.S. prime rate.
    Petitioner argues that it is inappropriate to estimate a U.S.-
dollar denominated interest rate where loans were actually obtained in 
pesos. Petitioner cites to Flowers, where the Department held that 
``where there were no U.S. borrowings, we used the actual peso 
borrowing rate, adjusted to reflect the fact that the credit expense 
was incurred in dollars and not pesos.'' See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Colombia, 59 Fed. Reg. 15,1159, 15,164 (March 31, 1994). 
Petitioner defends the appropriateness of the Department precedent of 
adjusting the borrowing rate for devaluation. Petitioner notes that 
such an adjustment reflects that net borrowing costs are lowered to the 
extent that the dollars later received will be worth a larger number of 
pesos.
DOC Position
    We agree, in part, with respondents. In determining the U.S. 
interest rate, it is the Department's policy that the interest rate 
used for a particular credit calculation should match the currency in 
which the sales are denominated. In cases where there are no borrowings 
in the currency of the sales made, the Department may use external 
information about the cost of borrowing in a particular currency (see, 
Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach to Barbara R. Stafford: Proposed Change 
in Policy Regarding Interest Rates Used in Credit Calculations, dated 
September 26, 1994). Therefore, the Department used a U.S. short-term 
interest rate of 7.575 percent, which is the average of the publicly 
ranged interest rates reported by those respondents that had actual 
U.S. borrowings during the POI. We consider this to be the best 
estimate of the U.S. dollar borrowing rates for those respondents that 
had no short-term borrowings, as it is based on best publicly available 
data of the actual experience of other rose growers.

Comment 22: Adjustment to Interest Rate

    The parties' further arguments concerning the appropriate Colombian 
peso interest rate are rendered moot.

Company-Specific Comments

    Because the Department is using constructed CV rather than third 
country prices, the parties' comments concerning the appropriate 
methodology in comparing USP to third country prices are moot. 
Therefore, we have not addressed company-specific comments relating to 
this issue. Furthermore, because the Department is using monthly 
average USPs for all roses, regardless of stem length, variety, or 
color, the parties' comments concerning issues of stem length, variety, 
rose type, and rose color are also moot and are not addressed.

Agrorosas S.A.

Comment 23

    Respondent argues that the Department should not consider the air 
ticket and travel expenses, discovered during verification in its 
accounting records, as indirect selling expenses since these expenses 
had no relation to the production and sale of the subject merchandise. 
According to respondent, the air ticket and travel expenses discovered 
during verification were the personal expenses of one of the company's 
shareholders (``the shareholder'') who was not employed in any capacity 
other than as a member of respondent's board of directors. Therefore, 
respondent maintains that ``the shareholder's'' personal travel was not 
related to the sale or production of the subject merchandise. 
Respondent further maintains that the air ticket invoices examined by 
the Department during verification provide proof that the travel and 
air ticket expenses in question were the personal expenses of ``the 
shareholder''.
    The petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the travel expenses 
should be added to the reported indirect selling expense because there 
is no evidence that the travel expenses shown in the company's 
accounting records are unrelated to rose sales. According to the 
petitioner, a presumption arises from the company's books and records 
that these expenses were related to the company's sales. [[Page 6999]] 
DOC Position
    Respondent included entertainment expenses as part of the indirect 
selling expense reported to the Department. As the Department 
established during its verification of the respondent, those 
entertainment expenses included, among others, entertainment expenses 
related to business trips made to the United States and in Colombia 
during the POI. These business trips were made by company officials as 
well as by the shareholder referred to above. The reported 
entertainment expenses did not include any travel or air ticket 
expenses associated with the business-related trips to the United 
States and in Colombia. During verification, the Department discovered 
unreported air ticket and travel expenses recorded in the company's 
accounting records.
    Although we could not ascertain during verification whether all of 
the travel and air ticket expenses were related to rose sales, we 
conclude that at least a portion of these expenses were related to rose 
sales.
    First, since the company incurred business-related entertainment 
expenses attributable, in part, to company officials' trips to the 
United States and in Colombia, the company must have incurred related 
air ticket and travel expenses for these trips. Second, because the 
shareholder, referred to above, was one of the company officials making 
business trips to the United States and in Colombia, it is reasonable 
to assume that at least a portion of the air ticket and travel expenses 
invoiced to the company for that shareholder must have been related to 
business as well. Finally, the air ticket and travel expenses were 
officially recognized in the company's accounting records as business-
related expenses.
    For the reasons outlined above, the Department cannot ascertain 
whether the air ticket and travel expenses were not tied to the sales 
of roses. However, because companies are required to report air ticket 
and travel expenses as expenses related to sales in the companies' 
audited financial statements, this provides a more reliable source of 
information as to the manner in which these expenses should be treated. 
Therefore, the Department included, as BIA, the entire amount of the 
air ticket and travel expenses discovered during verification in the 
calculation of the indirect selling expenses related to respondent's 
rose sales.

Comment 24

    The respondent maintains that it did not report any foreign inland 
freight expenses for the truck used to transport flowers to the airport 
in the months of January and February because the truck owned and used 
by respondent during those months was fully-depreciated and reflected 
no costs on respondent's records. The respondent further states that 
the truck rental expenses for the month of October of the POI were 
included in the amount reported in the month of December because the 
company was billed for the month of October in the month of December. 
Therefore, the respondent requests that the Department not use BIA for 
trucking expenses in those three months.
    The petitioner argues that there is no evidence on the record that 
respondent did not incur truck rental expenses for the month of 
January.
DOC Position
    In the Department's preliminary determination we used, as BIA, the 
monthly average truck rental expenses for the months of January, 
February and October because respondent reported no trucking expenses 
for those months. However, at verification, we established that 
respondent used its fully-depreciated truck for the months of January 
and February, and we found no record of expenses related to the 
operation of respondent's truck during those months. We found that 
respondent began renting a new truck beginning in February 1993, while 
it continued to use its fully depreciated truck until the end of that 
month. We also established that the truck rental expenses not reported 
for the month of February were included in the amount reported for the 
month of March. Similarly, the truck rental expenses not reported for 
the month of October were, in part, included in the amount reported for 
the month of December.
    Because we found no evidence of expenses related to respondent's 
truck for the months of January and February, and because we 
established that respondent included the truck rental expenses for the 
months of February and October in the amounts reported to the 
Department for following months, the Department used these actual 
expenses, and not BIA, in its calculations of these freight expenses.

Comment 25

    The respondent requests that the Department not use BIA for the 
fuel expenses related to the transportation of roses that respondent 
was unable to separately identify and report to the Department in its 
questionnaire responses. Instead, the respondent requests that the 
Department use the estimated monthly fuel expenses examined by the 
Department during verification.
    The petitioner maintains that the estimated fuel and maintenance 
costs were submitted for the first time during verification and should, 
therefore, not be accepted as a basis for a final determination. The 
petitioner further maintains that the purpose of verification is to 
verify the accuracy of the respondent's information already submitted 
on the record, not to collect new information. Therefore, the 
petitioner requests that the Department use BIA in its calculation of 
such foreign inland freight expenses.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. In its August 24, 1994, submission, 
respondent stated it could not determine the value of fuel expenses 
related to the transportation of roses separately. However, respondent 
also stated that it included fuel expenses related to the 
transportation of roses in the fuel purchase expenses reported in the 
CV table (see Appendix 7 of the respondent' August 24, 1994, 
submission). Absent any specific information on the fuel expense 
related to the transportation of roses, the Department, in its 
preliminary determination, used as BIA the monthly average fuel expense 
amount reported in the CV table.
    Given the above-referenced facts on the record, we disagree with 
the petitioner that the information collected during verification with 
respect to fuel expenses is new. The information submitted on the 
record does include fuel expenses. However, due to the difficulty of 
identifying these expenses separately, the respondent included them in 
the overall fuel charges of the company.
    During verification the respondent was able to provide information 
to substantiate an estimated monthly fuel expense amount. The estimated 
fuel charges were based on supporting documentation showing the 
distance in kilometers from the farm to the airport, the per gallon 
cost of fuel, and the number of gallons of fuel consumed per kilometer 
for the rented truck.
    The method used by the respondent to estimate the fuel charges, and 
the supporting documentation collected during verification constitute 
sufficient evidence and a viable means which enabled the Department to 
identify the fuel expenses related to rose transportation from 
information already submitted on the record prior to verification. For 
the above reasons, the Department used respondent's estimated monthly 
fuel expense [[Page 7000]] amount, instead of BIA, in the calculation 
of these foreign inland freight expenses.

Comment 26

    Respondent states that the December 1993 amortization expense 
relating to its new farm should be included in the CV calculation since 
it started producing roses during the POI.
    Petitioner states that to the extent that sales of roses from the 
new farm were included in the sales listing, costs incurred with 
respect to such farm should also be reported.
DOC Position
    The Department agrees with both the petitioner and the respondent 
in that the December 1993 amortization associated with the 
preproduction costs of Greenhouse B-1 should be included in constructed 
value. During verification, it was found that rose production of 
saleable roses had begun in December 1993. The Department, therefore, 
increased respondent's submitted costs to include the December 
amortization expense.

Comment 27

    Respondent states that the allocation of the Bogota office costs 
between subject and nonsubject merchandise is equitable and reasonable. 
Respondent argues that the Department should not charge these costs 
solely to subject merchandise because the only production-related 
expenses incurred at the Bogota office relate to the monthly Board of 
Directors meeting. All other managerial functions associated with rose 
production are performed at respondent's farm office.
    Petitioner contends that corporate expenses incurred at the Bogota 
office should be added to G&A in full and not allocated based on use of 
the office. Petitioner argues that there is no basis to exclude the 
expenses of the Bogota office since there is no evidence that the owner 
does not oversee the rose business from this office. Petitioner's 
allegation that the office is used for a construction business is 
belied by the fact that the office expenses are carried on respondent's 
corporate income statement and tax return.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent. At verification, respondent demonstrated 
that the Bogota office was used mainly by a shareholder to manage other 
businesses which are not associated with rose production. The 
Department also determined that the methodology used to allocate the 
costs of the office between subject and nonsubject merchandise was 
reasonable. Respondent allocated the Bogota office expense based on the 
number of days during which the company uses the office for its Board 
of Directors meeting. For the final determination, we increased 
respondent's submitted G&A expense by an allocated portion of the 
Bogota office costs.

Comment 28

    Respondent argues that the Department should not account for 
certain expenses paid by the company on the owner's behalf as G&A costs 
since these expenses were unrelated to the production or sale of the 
subject merchandise. Respondent states that in past cases, the 
Department has not required respondents to include similar owner 
expenses in CV even when such expenses were recorded in the accounting 
records of the company. Respondent cites in support of its position 
Final Determination of Sales at less Than Fair Value: Fresh Kiwifruit 
for New Zealand, 57 Fed. Reg. 13695, 13704 (April 17, 1992). Respondent 
also argues that these expenses should be considered a dividend paid by 
respondent to its majority shareholder and, thus, should not be 
accounted for as salary or compensation since the shareholder performs 
no day to day management of the company.
    Petitioner contends that the expenses paid by the company on the 
owner's behalf should be included in G&A since there is no evidence 
that such costs were unrelated to the rose business, and because they 
were carried on the respondent's books.
DOC Position
    We did not include in CV the personal expenses paid by the company 
on the owner's behalf. At verification, the expenses in question were 
demonstrated to be personal in nature, tax motivated, and not related 
to the production of the subject merchandise. The Department reached a 
similar conclusion in the Final Determination of Sales at less Than 
Fair Value: Fresh Kiwifruit for New Zealand, 57 Fed. Reg. 13695, 13704 
(April 17, 1992) in which personal expenses of an owner were not 
included in COP/CV since they were not related to the production of the 
subject merchandise.

Caicedo Group

Comment 29

    Respondent argues that the Department should not have used a high 
BIA rate for its sales through an unrelated importer. It states that 
while most of its sales to the United States are through its related 
importer, when the volume of exports is too great for the related party 
to handle, respondent will sell roses through other unrelated 
importers. One of these unrelated parties through which the respondent 
sold during the POI, according to respondent, failed to supply it with 
the detailed information needed for the response to the Department's 
questionnaire.
    Respondent also states that at verification, it supplied what it 
could relating to these sales, including copies of written requests to 
the unrelated importer to supply the necessary information and a copy 
of a negative reply from this unrelated importer to its request. The 
respondent states that, because it did not have the ability to compel 
the unrelated importer to supply it with information, that it would be 
unfair to apply a punitive BIA rate to these sales. The respondent 
states that due to the high value and the small volume of these sales 
the Department should leave these sales out of the margin calculations 
altogether. Respondent adds that, if these sales are not excluded, the 
Department should apply to them the average margin found with respect 
to the remaining sales by the respondent.
    The petitioner argues that where a party failed to supply U.S. 
sales data, the Department should apply ``Tier 1'' BIA. It cites 19 
U.S.C. 1677e(c), which, it states, prescribes the use of ``best 
information'' whenever requested information is not supplied, without 
regard to motive. The petitioner also states that the circumstances 
appear to indicate that the unrelated importer acted as a consignment 
agent, in which case there would typically be growers reports or other 
documentation pertaining to transactions. The petitioner adds that 
respondent is properly responsible if its agent withholds data.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent. At verification, we closely examined the 
quantity and value of sales to this consignee and noted no 
discrepancies with respect to either quantity of sales to this importer 
or respondent's claims about the availabilty of price information 
needed to respond to the questionnaire.
    The Department has the discretion to exclude certain sales. In 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above 
from the Republic of Korea, 54 FR 15467 (March 23, 1993), the 
Department excluded sales where the volume of sales was insignificant. 
We [[Page 7001]] determine that the sales through one of the 
respondent's unrelated U.S. customers during the POI were insignificant 
in volume. Therefore, we excluded these sales from our margin 
calculation.

Comment 30

    Respondent argues that in calculating U.S. indirect selling 
expenses, the Department should include the value of local Miami sales 
in the denominator of the equation. It claims that it inadvertently 
excluded local sales in the value of sales used to calculate the 
percentage applied to gross unit price. It adds that in accordance with 
the Department's instructions, however, all U.S. sales, including local 
sales, have been included in the U.S. sales listing.
    The petitioner provided no comments on this issue.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. While selling expenses associated 
with local sales may not be as great as those associated with sales in 
the normal course of trade in the market, they are nonetheless actual 
selling expenses that were incurred and examined at verification. 
Therefore, we have included the value of local Miami sales in the 
denominator of the U.S. indirect selling expense calculation.

Comment 31

    Petitioner argues that the costs associated with the freeze which 
occurred on December 31, 1993, the last day of the POI, were ordinary 
expenses and should not be deferred solely for the antidumping 
investigation. Petitioner further claims that the freeze was not 
unusual in the industry and that the company treated the cost 
associated with the freeze as a current year expense in its tax return.
    Respondent argues that the freeze, which destroyed a number of rose 
plants, was an extraordinary event. Respondent notes that the damaged 
plants were not scheduled to produce roses until the following year. 
Finally, respondent argues that under Colombian tax law it is 
permissible to write off a loss at the time of the event, despite the 
fact that the actual loss related to future income.
DOC Position
    We believe that the costs resulting from the freeze do not relate 
to the production and sale of roses during the POI. Instead, given the 
date on which the freeze occurred and the fact that the lost and 
damaged plants had not yet begun to produce roses, we have determined 
that these costs should be recognized in a future period.

Flores la Fragancia

Comment 32

    The petitioner maintains that there is no evidence that the 
respondent's breeder customers purchase merchandise that is different 
from the type of export quality rose which it sells to its retailer 
customers. In addition, the petitioner maintains that sales to breeders 
are made ``for home consumption'' and should be included in the 
Department's analysis. Alternatively, the petitioner argues that the 
respondent's sales to breeders do not constitute a distinct and 
separate level of trade because the respondent has not demonstrated 
that breeders' functions are different from the functions of any other 
type of purchaser as outlined in the Notice of Preliminary 
Determination: Disposable Pocket Lighters from Thailand 59 FR 53414 
(October 24, 1994). Finally, the petitioner alleges that, even though 
the respondent is now requesting that the Department exclude sales to 
breeders in its final analysis, the respondent initially relied on the 
breeder sales made in the home market in order to avoid the need to 
report third country sales.
    The respondent maintains that the Department should exclude sales 
to breeders because breeders are end users that are concerned only with 
whether the rose has a sprouting eye and not whether the rose is export 
quality or a cull. In other words, the breeder is not buying the rose, 
rather the plant material that is harvested with the rose. 
Alternatively, respondent maintains that, if the Department insists on 
using sales to breeders in its analysis, it should treat breeders as a 
distinct level of trade and not as retailers since breeders do not 
resell the roses purchased from it.
DOC Position
    We agree in part with the respondent. We examined invoices at 
verification which demonstrated that breeders purchase both export 
quality roses and culls from the respondent. We see no reason to 
distinguish whether the export quality rose does or does not have a 
sprouting eye because the rose is still considered subject merchandise. 
In this case, sales to breeders must be considered as a home market 
sale of subject merchandise when they are sales of export quality 
roses. Therefore, we have used sales to breeders in our COP test. Since 
all home market sales are below cost, we are comparing all U.S. sales 
to CV. Therefore, the issue of whether breeders constitute a different 
level of trade is moot.
    Finally, since the respondent correctly reported such sales in its 
home market sales database, we find that the petitioner's argument that 
the respondent tried to avoid reporting third country sales is not 
supported by the evidence on the record.

Comment 33

    The respondent maintains that all sales included in the customer 
category labelled ``sales to individuals'' were made to individuals 
closely associated with the respondent (e.g., mostly employees and 
relatives of the owners, the remainder being friends of the owners). 
Therefore, the respondent requests that the Department exclude all 
sales included in the customer category from our analysis. Finally, the 
respondent states that excluding these sales would be consistent with 
our decision to exclude other respondents' sales to employees from the 
analysis in the preliminary determination.
    The petitioner did not provide comments on this issue.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. We determined at verification that 
the vast majority of customers included in the customer category 
``sales to individuals'' were individuals related to the respondent. 
Documentation collected at verification demonstrates that the quantity 
and value of sales attributable to unrelated customers within the 
customer category is insignificant in terms of the total quantity and 
value amount reported under the customer category. Finally, we are 
comparing all U.S. sales to CV because, even including these home 
market sales, all sales are below COP. Therefore, we will not be using 
sales grouped under the category ``sales to individuals'' in our LTFV 
analysis.

Comment 34

    The petitioner contends that there is a large and unreconcilable 
discrepancy between the quantity shipped to and the quantity received 
by the respondent's U.S. subsidiary during certain POI months. The 
petitioner maintains that as a result of the difference between what 
export documentation shows the respondent shipped to the United States 
and what sales documentation shows the U.S. subsidiary sold during the 
POI, the respondent did not report a significant portion of its U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department should find the 
[[Page 7002]] respondent's U.S. sales listing to be unreliable and 
resort to BIA.
    The respondent states that the quantity shipped to its U.S. 
subsidiary reconciles with the quantity received by the U.S. subsidiary 
in the United States and that documentation collected by the Department 
at verification demonstrates that the U.S. sales listing is reliable.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. It was demonstrated at verification 
that, for the three selected POI months, the quantity shipped by the 
respondent to the United States reconciles with the quantity received 
by the U.S. subsidiary. In cases where differences existed between the 
amount of merchandise shipped from Colombia and the amount received in 
the United States, the respondent provided a reconciliation of the 
differences. Therefore, we have used the respondent's U.S. sales data 
in our analysis because the U.S. sales listing is reliable.

Comment 35

    The petitioner contends that we should resort to BIA due to the 
number and frequency of data problems such as the mis-reporting and 
under-reporting of sales information from invoices and grower-reports.
    The respondent maintains that it provided the Department with all 
information necessary to correct data-entry errors at verification and 
that the Department verified all corrections. The respondent points out 
that these errors all arose as a result of manually entering data for 
tens of thousands of home market sales and providing the Department 
with one monthly variety- specific stem-specific U.S. price during each 
POI month. Because the errors were unavoidable and most, if not all, 
were brought to the attention of the Department's verification team, 
the respondent requests that the Department use its sales data in the 
final analysis.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. We thoroughly tested the respondent's 
sales databases and established that the errors mentioned above were 
inadvertent, isolated, and small in magnitude, all of which the 
respondent either brought to our attention or were errors which we 
discovered as a result of respondent providing all requested 
information. Therefore, we have used respondent's response in our 
analysis.

Comment 36

    The petitioner alleges that the respondent's methodology for 
determining returned quantities (described in the respondent's 
September 12, 1994, submission) is based on returns of both subject and 
non-subject merchandise and that the Department should not allow the 
adjustment. In addition, the petitioner maintains that, even though the 
respondent's reported monthly returned quantities were less than what 
would have resulted using an alternative methodology described in the 
verification report, the Department should not correct for the 
respondent's error because it would greatly benefit the respondent by 
producing increases in the average unit value of the quantity sold.
    The respondent states that it did not include amounts of non-
subject merchandise in its allocation methodology. The respondent 
further notes that the methodology it used conservatively calculated 
its quantity of returns. Therefore, the respondent maintains that the 
Department should accept its returned credit quantity allocation 
method.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. As verification demonstrated, 
information contained in the credit memos is not contained in the 
respondent's U.S. subsidiary's computer system. For this reason, the 
respondent used a monthly allocation method. Furthermore, we find that 
the respondent did not include returns of non-subject merchandise in 
its monthly allocation method. After examining the U.S. sales database, 
we determined that the respondent had in fact correctly applied the 
allocation method described in its September 12, 1994, submission. The 
verification report notes that had the respondent used the returned 
credit value factors (not the returned credit quantity factors), the 
total quantity returned amount for the POI would have been greater than 
the amount the respondent in fact derived using its allocation method. 
This does not, however, signify that the respondent's allocation 
methodology was improperly or incorrectly computed. Thus, we have 
accepted the respondent's returned credit quantity allocation method.

Comment 37

    The petitioner contends that respondent's foreign inland freight 
monthly per-unit amounts shown in the verification report are based on 
quantity information contained in the registros and should not be used. 
In addition, the petitioner questions the variation in some of the 
monthly per-unit amounts. Finally, the petitioner maintains that the 
respondent should not have allocated the freight costs over gross unit 
price, since prices for different varieties and colors fluctuate 
substantially and such an allocation method would understate inland 
freight charges on the least expensive roses. Because of these alleged 
errors, the petitioner requests that the Department use, as BIA, the 
highest monthly per-unit amount to calculate freight expenses for all 
POI months.
    The respondent states that the quantity figures used in the freight 
calculation were verified by the Department and that it did not 
allocate its freight costs over gross unit price. In addition, the 
respondent states that monthly freight costs fluctuate significantly 
because the volume of shipments can be vastly different for a given 
month. Therefore, the respondent maintains that the Department should 
accept its methodology and not reject it because freight costs differ 
from one month to another in the POI.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. It was demonstrated at verification 
that its revised freight expense calculation is not based on quantity 
amounts from the registros, but on amounts from invoices and grower 
reports. Specifically, the quantity amounts of roses and non-subject 
merchandise sold to third countries are from invoices and the quantity 
amounts of roses and non-subject merchandise sold in the U.S. market 
are from grower reports. Therefore, respondent is using actual 
quantities to derive its freight expense.
    Regarding the petitioner's concerns that questionable variations 
exist for some of the monthly per-unit amounts, the respondent derived 
its monthly freight expenses by determining the freight expense it paid 
and the quantity amount it exported for each month based on when it 
recorded the expense in its accounting records and when it exported its 
product based on invoices. We have no reason to question this 
methodology because the calculated expenses accurately reflect the 
amounts respondent incurred.
    Finally, the respondent did not allocate freight expenses over 
gross unit price. As found at verification, the respondent derived 
monthly freight per-unit expenses using only quantity and freight 
expenses as variables. Therefore, we have accepted the respondent's 
freight allocation methodology and have used the monthly per-unit 
amounts.

Comment 38

    Respondent states that, while it normally accounts for the cost of 
greenhouse plastic as an expense in the [[Page 7003]] year of purchase, 
for its submission, it correctly capitalized the cost of the plastics 
and amortized them over a two-year period. Respondent maintains that 
its greenhouse plastic generally remains a productive asset for at 
least two years and, thus, to expense these assets in the year of 
acquisition would distort its current production costs. Respondent 
further argues that the Department has accepted a two-year amortization 
period in the Flowers proceedings.
    The petitioner notes that respondent's amortization methodology for 
greenhouse plastic was created by the company solely for its 
submission. Petitioner contends that the submitted costs must be 
rejected because the amortization schedule is incomplete and since 
respondent has not demonstrated that its normal accounting practices 
distort costs.
DOC Position
    As explained in the general issues section, Comment 19, we have 
allowed companies to capitalize and amortize greenhouse plastic costs 
even though respondents normally treat such costs as expenses in the 
year of purchase. Respondents must demonstrate, however, that they 
correctly capitalized and amortized similar costs from all previous 
years (see, Exhibit 5 of the cost verification report). Respondent 
failed to satisfy this requirement. We have therefore calculated 
respondent's greenhouse plastics cost using the actual costs incurred 
as reported in the company's 1993 accounting records.

Flores Mocari

Comment 39

    The petitioner alleges that certain verification exhibits indicate 
that respondent did not report all indirect selling expenses, e.g., 
advertising.
    The respondent maintains that it reported all indirect selling 
expenses. The respondent points out that the expense amounts identified 
by the petitioner include amounts associated with months prior to the 
POI. Second, the respondent points out that it makes adjustments to its 
accounts each month and that the total amounts of the accounting 
adjustments will cancel each other out by the end of the fiscal year. 
Third, the respondent states that the verification team examined 
whether numerous selling expenses were incurred as reflected in the 
accounting books and found no unreported selling expenses. Fourth, the 
respondent maintains that, where the expense was associated with both 
G&A and sales, it appropriately allocated the expense between 
administration and sales departments. The respondent maintains that the 
Department should accept its indirect selling expense allocation 
methodology.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. In the course of verifying this 
expense we examined and found that amounts from eight randomly selected 
accounts in the libro auxiliar for July 1993 were correct as shown on 
the respondents's indirect selling expense worksheet. We found that the 
respondent reported all of its selling expenses from its financial 
records. However, the petitioner points out that amounts from two 
additional accounts in the auxiliar do not correspond with amounts on 
the worksheet. Respondent's explanation that it moved some indirect 
selling expenses among the POI months in order to match monthly sales 
expenses with the corresponding sales is reasonable and we examined 
evidence of this practice at verification.
    We also determine that certain additional expenses should not be 
included in respondent's indirect selling expense calculation. We did 
not select for examination at verification respondent's method for 
allocating a certain expense to sales and a portion of that expense to 
G&A. Therefore, we have accepted respondent's methodology. Finally, we 
examined the five expenses noted in the petitioner's brief at 
verification and found that the respondent did not incur these 
expenses.

Comment 40

    The petitioner argues that respondent's related U.S. subsidiary 
should have allocated its grower/marketing expenses on a value of sales 
or cost of sales basis rather than per grower because the U.S. 
subsidiary cannot isolate the associates with only sales of merchandise 
produced by the respondent. Rather, the petitioner maintains that the 
expense should cover sales of subject merchandise of the U.S. 
subsidiary made on behalf of all growers.
    Respondent states that its U.S. subsidiary's grower/market expenses 
associated with making its sales and cultivating its relationship with 
respondent are minimal since this relationship is well-established. The 
respondent points out that its U.S. subsidiary should have probably 
excluded all expenses of the grower department but was instead 
conservative and allocated these expenses over the number of suppliers. 
Therefore, the Department should accept its U.S. indirect selling 
expense allocation methodology.
DOC Position
    We agree in part with the petitioner. Because the U.S. subsidiary 
could not determine from its accounting records the amount of grower/
marketing expenses associated with a specific grower, we cannot rely on 
the allocation method used by the U.S. subsidiary. Therefore, to 
account for the sales amount of merchandise produced by respondent that 
its U.S. subsidiary sold during the POI, we determined the grower/
marketing expense associated with respondent by first deriving a factor 
(gross sales of merchandise produced by respondent divided by the total 
product value sold by its U.S. subsidiary). We then multiplied this 
factor by the amount of grower/marketing expenses noted in the U.S. 
subsidiary's financial statements to arrive at a grower's expense 
associated with respondent.

Comment 41

    The petitioner alleges that the respondent arbitrarily derived an 
air freight expense allocation factor for three periods during the POI 
and that, instead, it should have derived freight allocation factors 
for each POI month. The petitioner argues that the respondent's 
methodology effectively smoothes out monthly fluctuations and produces 
higher freight rates during the period when U.S. sale prices are 
highest.
    The respondent maintains that its methodology properly reduces 
inaccuracies caused by inventory carryover without masking differences 
in monthly air freight rates. Therefore, we should accept its freight 
expense allocation methodology as reasonable.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. At verification it was demonstrated 
that the respondent created three distinct time periods within the POI 
corresponding to substantial rate changes. Within each period, the air 
freight rates incurred were similar. Accordingly, the respondent's air 
freight methodology is not arbitrary. Moreover, using monthly freight 
rates would not account for significant amounts of merchandise entering 
the latter part of one month but sold in the early part of the 
following month. Finally, we find that, there were significant rate 
changes in specific months of the POI, the different rate changes are 
highlighted by the periods used by respondent. Using monthly rates 
would not account for the fact that one would be deriving a freight 
amount [[Page 7004]] for merchandise sold by using a monthly freight 
rate which may have been higher or lower then the rate applicable when 
the merchandise entered inventory.

Comment 42

    The petitioner maintains that the Department should include 
reported sales which listed a box charge (a packing charge that the 
related importer charges the unrelated buyer) but a zero price.
    The respondent argues that these are sample sales and that the 
Department stated that it would exclude sample sales in the preliminary 
determination. Respondent argues that the Department should exclude 
these sales in the final determination. In addition, the respondent 
requests that the Department allocate the movement expenses and packing 
costs of its sample sales over the total U.S. sales value.
DOC Position
    It is within the Department's discretion to exclude U.S. sales when 
it finds that these are clearly atypical and not part of the 
respondent's ordinary business practice, e.g., sample sales (see Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Professional Electric 
Cutting and Sanding/Grinding Tools from Japan (58 FR 30144, 30146, May 
26, 1993)). However, we must also find that to use these sales would 
undermine the fairness of the comparison.
    We have used transactions with positive box charge amounts in our 
analysis because these transactions are typical and part of the 
respondent's ordinary business practice.

Comment 43

    The respondent maintains that one of the Department's verification 
issues is based on a misunderstanding of how the company accounts for 
preproduction costs in its normal books and records. Respondent claims 
that verification exhibits on the record conclusively support the fact 
that it ordinarily capitalizes preproduction costs in its financial 
statements.
    Petitioner contends that respondent should not be permitted to 
explain its general ledger system and accounting practices in a case 
brief. Petitioner argues that respondent's case briefs are not intended 
to be a vehicle for the company to submit new information relating to 
matters that were not covered during verification.
DOC Position
    This issue is moot since, despite respondent's normal accounting 
for preproduction costs, the Department allowed the company to 
capitalize and amortize its preproduction costs. See General Comment 
19.

Comment 44

    Respondent states that during verification, the Department found 
that there was a difference between the amount of preproduction costs 
capitalized for a particular test month and the amount recorded on 
respondent's preproduction cost amortization schedule for the same 
month. Respondent argues that this difference is insignificant and, 
thus, the Department need not adjust its reported rose production costs 
to account for the discrepancy.
    Petitioner contends that in the interest of accuracy, the 
Department should correct for this differential in preproduction costs 
capitalized no matter how insignificant the effect.
DOC Position
    We disagree with respondent that the difference between the amount 
of capitalized preproduction costs and the amount recorded on its 
preproduction cost amortization schedule for the same month is 
insignificant. The example highlighted in the cost verification report 
related to only one month of the POI. Yet, this difference is present 
in all twelve months of the POI. We therefore adjusted for the entire 
amount of underreported amortization relating to respondent's 
preproduction costs.

Comment 45

    Petitioner claims that certain expenses recorded as cost of goods 
sold in respondent's financial statement should not be reclassified as 
G&A. Petitioner argues that respondent failed to provide evidence 
sufficient to support its claim that its expenses had been 
misclassified in the company's financial statements.
    Respondent contends that the evidence it provided at verification 
clearly supports its reclassification of these expenses from cost of 
goods sold to G&A.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent that sufficient evidence was provided at 
verification to support the reclassification of these expenses to G&A. 
We therefore made no adjustment was made for purposes of the final 
determination.

Comment 46

    Petitioner claims that respondent's SG&A costs should not be 
reduced by payments received from another company, since a portion of 
respondent's SG&A costs have already been allocated to that company. 
According to petitioner, if the Department were to allow the respondent 
to offset its SG&A by the payments received from the other company, it 
would effectively double count the offset. Additionally, petitioner 
argues that the revenue received by respondent from the other company 
is neither short term nor related to the rose production operations.
    Respondent argues that the amounts received from the other company 
represent an offset to expenses recorded on respondent's books. 
According to the respondent, there is no separate allocation of SG&A 
expenses to the other company and, thus, the payments received from the 
other company are not double counted on respondent's books.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent that the amounts received from the other 
company are not double counted. The full amount of SG&A expenses are 
recorded on respondent's books. None of these expenses are allocated to 
the other company. By offsetting these total expenses with payments 
received from the other company, respondent is in effect charging the 
other company for expenses incurred on its behalf.

Comment 47

    Petitioner argues that exchange gains and losses related to sales 
transactions and debt should be included in respondent's constructed 
value calculation. According to petitioner, failure to take into 
account these exchange gains and losses will result in the misstatement 
of respondent's costs.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner in part. It is our practice to exclude 
from costs the exchange gains and losses arising from sales 
transactions since these amounts do not relate to production of the 
subject merchandise. Other exchange gains and losses associated with 
respondent's debt, however, relate to the company's overall operations. 
Thus, we have included these amounts in our calculation of respondent's 
rose production costs.

Grupo Andes

Comment 48

    Respondent states that the Department should use the interest rate 
it reported for calculating credit expense. The respondent argues that 
the sales verification report acknowledges that: (1) The company used a 
variable rate demand note interest rate for calculating U.S. credit 
expense; and (2) [[Page 7005]] the terms of the bond define the 
interest rate as a weekly rate using a certain rate, which is the rate 
for high quality, short-term or demand, tax-exempt obligations.
    Respondent states that if the Department decides that this rate 
should not be used, then it should use the prime rate for calculating 
U.S. interest credit expense.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the respondent. While the respondent accurately 
describes the terms of the bond, the Consolidated Balance Sheet for 
Continental Farms (respondent's related subsidiary) shows that only the 
current portion of the bond is accounted for under ``Current 
Liabilities''; the much larger portion of the bond is listed under 
``Long-term Debt.'' Thus, we view this obligation and the interest 
expense associated with it as long term.
    Also, regarding U.S. credit expense, as noted in the verification 
report, respondent's U.S. credit expense verification exhibit contained 
a written explanation of its credit period calculation methodology from 
an accounting manual. This manual states that the methodology ``does 
not work well with a seasonal business.''
    Therefore, we have recalculated the credit period using a different 
methodology but the same data contained in respondent's verification 
exhibit. In addition, we have disallowed respondent's interest rate 
and, instead, applied an average of publicly ranged interest rates. 
(See Comment 21.)

Comment 49

    The petitioner argues that respondent could not identify export 
selling expenses from its books and records. It states that respondent 
earlier reported having an ``export department'' that prepared weekly 
and monthly reports concerning export quality roses sold in Colombia. 
The petitioner argues that expenses incurred by this department should 
be included in the total amounts allocated to indirect selling expenses 
incurred in Colombia.
    The petitioner also states that, with regard to indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the United States, the verification report 
indicated that indirect selling expenses were allocated over ``total 
global sales.'' The petitioner states that given that Continental Farms 
is located in the United States and that the respondent is attempting 
to derive U.S. selling expenses, such an allocation appears overly 
broad.
    Respondent states that it has included in its indirect selling 
expenses incurred in Colombia all such expenses that could be 
identified based on available accounting records. Respondent also 
states that the petitioner's suggestion regarding administrative 
expenses is unreasonable. With regard to indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the United States, the respondent states that those 
expenses were allocated over total sales of all products by Continental 
Farms, not Andes as the petitioner seems to assume.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. At verification, the Department found 
no information to indicate any U.S. indirect selling expenses incurred 
in Colombia beyond those identified. Also, we found no significant 
discrepancies with the information examined.
    With regard to indirect selling expenses incurred in the United 
States, the respondent allocated such expenses over sales of all 
products to all markets by Continental Farms only.
    We agree with the respondent that its allocation methodology was 
reasonable based on what was examined at verification.

Comment 50

    Petitioner notes that for purposes of computing U.S. value added, 
respondent allocated net profits between U.S. and home market 
production costs based on the transfer price charged by the respondent 
to its U.S. affiliates. Petitioner states that the Department has 
always supported a cost based profit allocation methodology in further 
manufacturing cases. Petitioner therefore argues that the Department 
should exclude all of respondent's U.S. value added sales from the LTFV 
margin calculation.
    Respondent acknowledges that the Department normally allocates 
profit on the basis of cost in further manufacturing cases. Respondent 
maintains, however, that because of the unique nature of the rose 
market and the volatility in its pricing, profits should be allocated 
on the basis of price, not cost.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner that our normal practice is to allocate 
profit in further manufacturing cases on the basis of relative cost. 
See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and 
Above from the Republic of Korea (54 FR 15467, March 23, 1993). 
Respondent has provided no evidence or support for its argument that, 
because of price volatility in the roses market, our normal practice 
distorts the antidumping analysis. Therefore, we have allocated the 
profits for further manufactured roses on the basis of cost and have 
included these sales in our analysis.

Comment 51

    Respondent argues that the Department's cost verification report 
significantly overstates the amount of G&A expenses of the respondent 
that should be allocated to rose production. Respondent notes that the 
Department's report indicates G&A costs inclusive of the intercompany 
purchase of flowers. Respondent argues that the respondent's 
intercompany purchase of flowers for resale should not be considered 
part of the company's G&A expenses. In addition, respondent believes 
that the Department's calculation of the respondent. G&A expenses does 
not take into account the company's other income which should be 
deducted from the G&A expenses. Finally, respondent asserts that the 
respondent's net G&A expenses should be allocated among the different 
flower types sold by respondent.
    Petitioner argues that respondent's claims regarding other revenue 
are not support by the record. Petitioner argues that respondent's case 
brief is not the place for explaining data that should have been 
presented during verification. Accordingly, petitioner does not believe 
that there is any basis to credit respondent's G&A expenses with the 
offset for respondent's other revenue.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent that the costs of intercompany purchases 
of flowers should not be included in the calculation of G&A expenses. 
However, we also agree with petitioner that the record does not support 
respondent's claims for other income offsets to the G&A expenses. 
Accordingly, we have rejected respondent's argument and calculated the 
G&A based upon the costs examined at verification.

Grupo Benilda

Comment 52

    Respondent maintains that it reported home market sales in U.S. 
dollars because the home market sales transactions were denominated and 
invoiced in U.S. dollars. According to respondent, the home market 
customer paid the peso equivalent of the invoiced dollar amount, using 
the exchange rate on the date of payment. For this reason, respondent 
argues that the Department should not attempt to recalculate the value 
of these sales by converting dollars to pesos and then converting pesos 
to dollars because, respondent claims, this would distort the real 
value of these sales. [[Page 7006]] 
    With respect to the short-term borrowing rate to be used in 
calculating the home market imputed credit, respondent argues that its 
dollar borrowing rate should be used because the home market sales were 
negotiated, contracted for, and denominated in dollars. Respondent 
further maintains that it would not make economic sense to borrow at a 
peso borrowing rate to finance dollar denominated accounts receivable. 
Therefore, respondent requests that the Department continue to use 
respondent's dollar borrowing rate in its calculation of home market 
credit expenses.
DOC Position
    During respondent's verification, we established that respondent 
invoiced its home market customers in U.S. dollars and received the 
equivalent value in pesos at the date of payment. We were able to trace 
the payments to the company's records and establish that the payments 
made to the company in pesos reflected the prevailing exchange rates at 
the time of payment.
    It is the Department's practice to accept charges in the currency 
in which the charges are made. In this instance, home market prices 
were charged in dollars. Therefore, the Department found it appropriate 
that respondent's home market sales were reported in dollar value since 
the dollar value was the currency in which the sales transactions were 
made. Furthermore, since home market sales were transacted in dollars 
and the payments made, although in pesos, were based on constant dollar 
value, there is no distortion. Using respondent's dollar borrowing rate 
in the calculation of the home market imputed credit, is, therefore, 
appropriate.

Comment 53

    Respondent argues that the air freight account examined by the 
Department during verification reflects expenses entirely related to 
air freight for products shipped to a customer in a foreign country. 
Respondent maintains that the Department collected documentation at 
verification which supports this. Respondent further maintains that the 
suggestion made in the Department's verification report that half of 
the amount reported in the air freight account be added to the reported 
foreign inland freight is based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and 
it would be incorrect to include any portion of this account in the 
Department's calculation of foreign inland freight expenses.
    The petitioner argues that there is no evidence on the record to 
show that the air freight expenses, reported in one of the company's 
transportation accounts, are related entirely to air freight expenses 
for that foreign country. According to the petitioner, the supporting 
documentation collected during verification only supports the 
conclusion that air freight expenses for one month (i.e., the month of 
August) were for shipments made to the foreign country. According to 
the petitioner, the exhibit collected by the Department does not 
establish that all entries under this account code were destined for 
that foreign country and does not identify the portion of these 
expenses related to inland freight. The petitioner argues that because 
respondent failed to report the inland freight expenses included in the 
account, the Department should include the full amount of the charges 
in the calculation of inland freight expenses.
DOC Position
    At verification we examined one of the company's accounts related 
to transportation titled ``Transportes Aereos'' (Air Transportation). A 
company official stated that the entries made to that account were for 
inland and air freight expenses related to products shipped to a 
customer in a foreign country. To verify this statement we examined all 
supporting documentation for one month.
    The documentation consisted solely of air freight charges, which is 
indicative that the entries made under this account were related to air 
freight, not inland freight. As there is no evidence on the record 
showing that the air freight account in question is related to inland 
freight, we have not included any amount from this account in our 
calculation of respondent's foreign inland freight expenses.

Comment 54

    The petitioner requests that all the expenses related to Federal 
Express discovered during verification be allocated to rose sales in 
the U.S. market. The petitioner argues that there is no evidence that 
the Federal Express charges incurred by the respondent's related 
company in the United States were not shipment expenses on sales to 
U.S. customers, nor is there any basis to assume that such expenses 
should be allocated to sales outside the United States or to 
merchandise other than roses. According to the petitioner these 
expenses should be treated as direct selling expenses related merely to 
rose sales.
    According to the respondent, these expenses should be appropriately 
added to the ``other expenses'' field, or to indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the United States.
DOC Position
    At verification, company officials discovered unreported expenses 
related to Federal Express. However, because, in general, we cannot 
accept new information at verification and, due to time constraints we 
were unable to verify the exact amounts of these expenses to each 
destination and for each merchandise class, we were only able to verify 
the total expense. Thus, the Department, as BIA, included the total of 
these expenses in the calculation of movement charges related to U.S. 
rose sales.

Comment 55

    Respondent maintains that at the preliminary determination, the 
Department double counted certain expenses related to U.S. duty, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, and movement charges. According to respondent, 
the Department applied BIA for the above-referenced expenses for 
certain ESP sales, even though these expenses were already included in 
respondent's indirect selling expenses. Respondent, therefore, requests 
that the Department eliminate the BIA values and count the actual 
expenses as part of indirect selling expenses, as reported. 
Furthermore, respondent argues that delivery and brokerage expenses are 
functions performed by respondent's related U.S. importer, and that 
such expenses are included in the importer's accounting records as 
indirect selling expenses. Therefore, respondent argues that it serves 
no purpose to attempt to break these costs out and report them 
separately.
    Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the movement expenses 
included in the reported indirect selling expenses are not properly 
classified as indirect selling expenses and are not entitled to be 
offset under 19 CFR Sec. 353.56. According to petitioner, respondent 
should bear the burden of identifying its U.S. indirect selling 
expenses. Otherwise, respondent has an incentive to report all U.S. 
selling expenses as indirect in order to obtain a greater offset. 
Therefore, respondent requests that the Department treat the entire 
amount of indirect selling expenses as direct selling expenses.
DOC Position
    Duty. We are unsure why respondent refers to double-counting of 
duty charges. Respondent has always reported U.S. duty as unique 
movement charge in its database. We verified duty charges in the same 
context as airfreight [[Page 7007]] charges, specific to shipments of 
roses and reported as a movement charge. Respondent has not reported 
U.S. duty in its importer's indirect selling expenses. In the 
preliminary determination, we used the highest reported duty as BIA for 
any ESP sale with no duty reported (as all FOB Miami sales must have 
applicable duty charges). We noted in our verification report that 
respondent failed to report duty for several transactions. Therefore, 
as BIA, we are using the average positive duty and airfreight charges 
for purposes of the final determination.
    Brokerage. In its first submissions, respondent reported U.S. 
brokerage as a fixed-fee per airway bill on ESP sales. Respondent then 
stated shortly before the preliminary determination that it had double-
counted these costs by also including brokerage charges in its reported 
indirect selling expenses. At the preliminary determination, we stated 
that it was proper to report brokerage as a movement charge, and that, 
since we could not easily remove brokerage from indirect selling 
expenses, we subtracted both the charges reported in the database as 
movement expenses, and the total reported indirect selling expenses.
    At verification, respondent demonstrated to the Department that the 
brokerage costs incurred by the importer's staff acting as respondent's 
in-house broker, include not only the importer's brokerage fees, but 
also the personnel and other costs of the respondent's U.S. subsidiary. 
Therefore, company officials maintained that the total costs associated 
with brokerage should be reported as a subset of indirect selling 
expenses.
    We determined that the manner in which total brokerage charges are 
incurred and recorded in the respondent's accounting system, and the 
difficulty of re-allocation to rose sales, are circumstances under 
which their inclusion in the related importer's indirect selling 
expenses was warranted.

U.S. Inland Freight Expenses

    During verification, respondent identified the freight charges for 
local transportation included in the importer's overhead expenses. 
Consequently, we removed them from indirect selling expenses and 
treated them as a movement expense. We also deducted from the reported 
indirect selling the freight expense amount.

Comment 56

    Petitioner argues that expenses related to hurricane damage, 
amortization, legal fees and depreciation should not be excluded from 
respondent's G&A expenses. Petitioner believes that these expenses are 
costs of selling in the U.S. market. Petitioner further maintains, that 
because these expenses were classified as G&A in the ordinary 
accounting records of the importer, there is no basis to treat these 
charges as extraordinary items. Petitioner further maintains that 
certain depreciation expenses which were not reported as indirect 
selling expenses, should be included since they relate to the sale and 
distribution of subject merchandise.
    Respondent maintains that these expenses were properly excluded 
from the reported indirect selling expenses because these expenses are 
unrelated to selling expenses.
DOC Position
    During verification, we established that the related importer did 
not report to the Department certain overhead expenses. According to 
respondent, these expenses were not reported since they are unrelated 
to rose sales and were properly classified as G&A expenses.
    We agree with petitioner that the G&A expenses excluded from the 
reported indirect selling expenses should be included in the indirect 
selling expenses because importer's function, as a related subsidiary, 
is the sale and distribution of the subject merchandise. Since the 
expenses respondent excluded from indirect selling were not reported to 
the Department and since there is not sufficient information on the 
record to show how these expenses can be allocated to the importer's 
rose sales related to respondent, the Department used BIA to account 
for these unreported expenses. The Department added the ratio of the 
unreported overhead expense amount to the importer's total sales value 
to the indirect selling expense ratio used in the calculation of 
respondent's indirect selling expenses.

Comment 57

    The petitioner maintains that expenses related to the computer 
system department should be allocated among farms based on the sales 
value or volume. The petitioner further argues that allocating these 
expenses over the number of farms would disguise the higher costs 
involved in making more entries for farms with higher sales volume. The 
petitioner, therefore, suggests that the computer system department 
expenses be prorated based on either the sales value or the number of 
boxes shipped to the respondent's U.S. subsidiary.
    According to the respondent, sales value and volume are irrelevant 
to this allocation because it takes approximately the same amount of 
time to prepare a growers report, regardless of the number of 
transactions.
DOC Position
    At verification we examined the records of the respondent's U.S. 
subsidiary and found no evidence that the method used to allocate entry 
processing expenses was not reflective of the company's record-keeping 
system.
    We disagree with the petitioner that the expenses related to the 
computer system department should be allocated based on the sales value 
or volume of each farm. Moreover, fixed costs for salaries, computer 
supplies, and maintenance are incurred regardless of the volume or 
value of transactions entered into the computer system. Therefore, the 
Department found the allocation of these expenses based on the number 
of farms to be appropriate.

Comment 58

    At verification, company officials of the respondent's U.S. 
subsidiary explained that its grower department incurred expenses for 
soliciting new suppliers of roses. We established that the U.S. 
subsidiary did not allocate any of these expenses to the rose sales of 
its related company. The respondent argues, however, that, as these 
expenses relate to soliciting new suppliers of roses, and the U.S. 
subsidiary's supply from the respondent is already guaranteed by their 
relationship, the U.S. subsidiary's grower department expenses were 
properly not allocated to the respondent.
    The petitioner argues that, in the absence of any evidence showing 
that such expenses were not applicable to the respondent, the full 
amount of grower department expenses should be allocated to the 
respondent based on a sales prorated basis.
DOC Position
    At verification we found no evidence that respondent's U.S. 
subsidiary's grower department expenses were applicable to the 
respondent. Therefore, the Department did not allocate any expenses of 
the U.S. subsidiary's grower department to the respondent's rose sales 
in the U.S. market.

Comment 59

    Respondent contends that it appropriately capitalized certain 
severance payments for its submission and amortized those payments over 
a two-year period. Respondent states that the purpose of the payment 
was to encourage employees to switch to a new [[Page 7008]] severance 
pay system that could benefit the company in future periods.
    Petitioner argues that the severance paid during December 1993 
should be expended in the POI, according to the company's normal 
accounting practice. Petitioner states that severance by nature is 
based on past service, not future services. Petitioner argues that it 
is unclear whether the expenditures will produce any future cost 
reductions. Additionally, there is no basis to conclude that 
respondent's normal accounting practice distorts actual costs.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent. In order to benefit from the amendment to 
the Colombian labor laws, respondent paid its employees a voluntary 
bonus that was equivalent to approximately two years of severance 
payments under the old system. The adoption of the amendment by a 
company is voluntary. The purpose of the amendment is to generate lower 
monthly severance provisions in the future. For the submission, 
respondent amortized this bonus over the period it will take to recover 
the bonus expense through cost savings. Since the bonus is, in effect, 
a prepayment of future severance cost, we made no adjustment. The 
Department also recognizes that U.S. GAAP allows delayed recognition of 
post-employment benefits. Thus, charges for post-employment are not 
recognized as incurred but are recognized systematically over future 
periods. Therefore, no adjustment was made for purposes of the final 
determination.

Comment 60

    Petitioner states that the accounting adjustments made during the 
POI should be included in COP and CV. Petitioner argues that respondent 
has not demonstrated that the adjustments were not, in fact, actual 
expenditures during the POI. The petitioner also states that there is 
no basis on which to depart from the company's audited financial 
statements.
    Respondent argues that when calculating constructed value, the 
Department may include only those costs which would ordinarily permit 
production in the ordinary course of business. 19 U.S.C. 
1677b(e)(1)(a). Respondent contends that the Department should not 
automatically rely upon a company's accounting records, but instead, 
should determine whether the amount represents a cost of production 
properly attributable to the POI, and if it does not, it should be 
excluded. The respondent argues that a company may properly treat a 
cost for the purposes of calculating constructed value in a manner that 
differs from the treatment of those costs in the company's books. 
Respondent argues that is appropriate when the treatment in the books 
does not represent actual production costs and cites the final 
determination of sales at less than fair value:
    Ferrosilicon From Venezuela, 58 FR 27522, 27527 (1993).
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. At verification, respondent 
demonstrated that the year end adjustments were not current production 
costs. Instead, these entries related to costs of the following year. 
Respondent provided data to support that the adjustments were reversed 
within the first few business days of 1994, and, thus, were properly 
recorded in 1994 production costs.

Comment 61

    Petitioner contends that the 1992 maintenance costs capitalized in 
the company's books and the amortized during 1993 should not be 
excluded from reported costs. The petitioner claims that there is no 
basis on which to depart from the company's audited financial 
statements.
    Respondent states that these capitalized maintenance costs did not 
relate to the production of subject merchandise during the POI. 
Respondent states that if the Department were to include 1992 
maintenance expenses in 1993 cost, then to be consistent, some 
maintenance expenses incurred in 1993 should be reclassified as 1994 
costs.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent. By capturing all of respondent's 1993 
operating expenses we have accounted for all rose production costs. 
Accordingly, no adjustment is deemed necessary.

Comment 62

    Respondent states that the Department should not include in CV the 
costs of a certain business investment that is wholly unrelated to the 
production of roses in Colombia. Respondent notes that the income 
generated by this investment was similarly excluded from the 
submission.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent. Since this investment is not related to 
the production of roses, we did not include the income or expenses 
associated with it.

Grupo Bojaca

Comment 63

    Respondent confirmed that it properly reported G&A expenses. Thus, 
respondent claims there is no longer any factual basis upon which to 
continue the G&A adjustment made in the preliminary determination.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. The Department adjusted the G&A 
amounts at the preliminary determination because respondent had failed 
to provide a timely reconciliation of the reported amounts. 
Subsequently, the Department reconciled these costs at verification. No 
discrepancies concerning this expense were noted at verification, 
therefore, adjustments are no longer necessary.

Comment 64

    The petitioner claims that offsets to financial expenses were 
overstated by profits on investment sales, income from previous years, 
and other income. The petitioner states that only income directly 
related to the short-term interest expenses is permitted as an offset 
to interest expense. Moreover, the petitioner states that respondent 
failed to show that the claimed income is related to short-term 
investments. Such support is required before income can be used as an 
offset to interest expenses. The petitioner states that income from 
prior years or from insurance claims does not relate to current short-
term interest costs.
    Respondent claims that its reported financial income is 
appropriately treated as an offset to financial expenses. The 
respondent also argues that the Department should not recalculate its 
reported per unit net interest expense so as to allocate total company-
wide interest expense to roses. The respondent states that this is a 
generic problem (for all companies) that stems from the Department's 
misunderstanding of how the CV tables were developed in the Fresh Cut 
Flowers cases. The respondent states that the Department should utilize 
the per unit net interest expense as calculated in the CV tables 
submitted.
DOC Position
    We agree, in part, with both the petitioner and the respondent. The 
miscellaneous income amounts allocable to roses were reclassified to 
G&A expense. Only interest earned on short-term investments of working 
capital was used to offset financial expense. As to the error in the CV 
table, [[Page 7009]] we have corrected this problem in our final 
calculations. (See Comment 11).

Comment 65

    Respondent claims the Department's verification report overstates 
the errors with respect to its credit period calculation and U.S. 
credit expenses, and that only two customers were affected. For those 
two customers, respondent used an incorrect box charge in the 
denominator of its credit expense calculation. Respondent claims that 
increasing the monthly average sales by a given amount results in no 
change to the credit periods for these two customers. Respondent also 
states that the days outstanding will not change as a result of volume 
changes as suggested in the verification report.
    The petitioner states that verification disclosed errors in the 
calculation of U.S. credit days that should be amended.
DOC Position
    While we noted errors in respondent's calculation of U.S. credit 
days for two customers, the effect of these errors does not change the 
actual number of days outstanding from that reported. Thus, we have 
used respondent's reported days outstanding.

Comment 66

    The petitioner states that discounts are price adjustments or 
direct selling expenses, not financial costs. Accordingly, such costs 
should be segregated and separately deducted as direct selling 
expenses. The petitioner states that to the extent that these costs 
cannot be separated from true financial costs, the entire amount should 
be treated as direct selling expenses.
    The respondent states that there is no way to segregate cash 
discounts from the related importer's financial expenses, nor is there 
any reason to do so. Respondent notes that because the basis of its FMV 
is CV, it does not matter whether these costs are reported as indirect 
or direct selling expenses.
DOC Position
    We agree with the petitioner that discounts should be segregated 
and treated as a price adjustment. Accordingly, we have segregated 
discounts from indirect selling expenses and made an adjustment to USP 
for these discounts. Thus, we have adjusted indirect selling expenses 
for the discounts and have also included financial expenses in the 
indirect selling expenses.

Grupo Clavecol

Comment 67

    The petitioner maintains that respondent's air freight charges were 
improperly allocated by flower weight. The petitioner maintains that 
the use of a universal kg/box weight to allocate freight charges is 
inaccurate because box weight will vary significantly depending on the 
type of flowers packed in the same size box. The petitioner maintains 
that the per-rose weight calculated from the reported average is not 
realistic based on the petitioner's comparison of the per-rose weight 
to weights of other flowers shipped by respondent. The petitioner 
maintains that the Department should use the ratio of total sales of 
roses to total sales of all flowers to allocate total air freight 
charges to roses.
    The respondent maintains its allocation is reasonable because, 
although the number of flowers per box varies, boxes of flowers are 
generally treated as weighing approximately the same regardless of the 
type of flowers contained in the box. The respondent states that the 
petitioner overstates the variance in flower weights by failing to 
recognize that units for flowers such as alstromeria are for bunches, 
not stems. Moreover, the petitioner's proposed methodology appears to 
result in a lower air freight charge for roses than the currently 
reported allocation.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the petitioner. The petitioner did not distinguish 
between numbers of stems and numbers of bunches for alstromeria, which 
changes the relationship between weight and flower type considerably. 
The result of respondent's calculation was an average weight per rose 
stem which is neither unreasonable nor improbable. We note that the 
respondent's basic weight- driven methodology had been on the record 
since June. The petitioner never raised this issue, nor did the 
Department instruct respondent to change its reporting prior to 
verification. Verification is not intended to collect new data nor to 
design new methodology. The petitioner neglects to mention that the air 
freight bills to respondent's U.S. subsidiary cover the subsidiary's 
FOB Miami sales both to the United States and to Canada, so that the 
higher rate would, in fairness, apply to the average for both U.S. and 
Canadian FOB Miami sales. Accordingly, we have continued to use the 
data as reported and verified by the Department.

Comment 68

    The petitioner maintains that respondent did not sufficiently 
substantiate that the expenses recorded under a certain account code 
pertain only to sales made to third countries. The petitioner argues 
that respondent presented no documentation at verification to support 
its claim. Moreover, the petitioner argues that, if third-country sales 
represent a given percent of total exports, it is not credible that 
third-country selling expenses equal a larger percent of total selling 
expenses reported.
    Respondent maintains that the documentation examined at 
verification showed that the categories of expenses included in its 
response were specifically related to third country sales. The 
respondent states that these expenses, by their nature, do not apply to 
U.S. sales.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the petitioner. The Department's verifiers were 
provided with both explanations and basic documentation to show that 
certain Bogota export expenses did not pertain to U.S. sales. In terms 
of the general difference in levels of cost, respondent's sales 
channels in third-country markets are not the same as its operations in 
the United States, therefore, it is not improbable that different costs 
are incurred for processing third country sales.

Comment 69

    The petitioner argues that respondent should have separately 
reported U.S. inland freight costs rather than include them with 
indirect selling expenses.
    The respondent maintains that the Department issued a letter on 
August 10, 1994, expressly stating that it was not necessary to 
segregate inland freight charges from U.S. indirect selling expenses.
DOC Position
    Early in the investigation, counsel for numerous Colombian 
respondents, including respondent, explained that, because of the 
nature of their companies' record-keeping, certain expenses could not 
readily be broken out in the requested computer format. In our August 
10, 1994, letter, we allowed the respondents to report various 
expenses, including brokerage and handling, inland freight, and 
warehousing, as components of aggregate indirect selling expenses, 
instead of breaking these out as separate costs to be reported as 
movement expenses. The letter was conditional, however, as it stated 
that, ``if at [[Page 7010]] verification the Department discovers 
information which is contrary to your August 9, 1994, letter, we may 
reconsider these decisions.'' At verification, we examined the records 
which contained freight cost entries for truck services and for van 
expenses. The various related accounts, such as maintenance and 
depreciation, apply to any and all use of the U.S. subsidiary's 
vehicles. Company officials showed us that these general expenses apply 
universally to trucking and van services. Verification confirmed that 
there was not a reasonable method available for disaggregating the 
costs for U.S. inland freight for roses.
    Therefore, we have kept U.S. inland freight charges as a component 
of the U.S. subsidiary's indirect selling expenses in keeping with the 
terms outlined in the Department's August 10, 1994, letter.

Comment 70

    The petitioner argues that certain advertising expenses should be 
treated as direct selling expenses and should only be allocated to U.S. 
sales. The petitioner states that since the advertising was published 
in the magazine Florists Review, the readers of the magazine would be 
customers of respondent's customers, that is, the florists who buy from 
the wholesalers who purchase roses from respondent.
    The respondent maintains that, first, these are insignificant 
expenses and their treatment as direct selling expenses would make 
little impact on the dumping calculation. Second, the respondent 
maintains that the U.S. subsidiary's advertising is seen by wholesale 
customers who also read Florists Review. Third, respondent argues that 
this magazine is also distributed in Canada; thus if direct selling 
expenses are warranted, Canadian sales as well as U.S. sales should be 
affected.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the petitioner. We re-examined the sample 
documentation in verification Exhibit 14C. The evidence shows that the 
advertising touts the U.S. subsidiary's reliability as a supplier. 
Nowhere does the advertising speak to retail shops; no admonitions 
exist for retail florists to ask their suppliers to look for the U.S. 
subsidiary's products. As the advertising is aimed at respondent's 
customer, and not to that customer's customers, we have made no change 
in treating advertising as reported indirect selling expenses.

Comment 71

    The petitioner alleges that purchase prices should be adjusted to 
reflect unreported wire transfer changes. The petitioner cites the 
verification report, which states that one U.S. customer paid 
respondent by wire transfer and deducted the wire transfer cost from 
the amount paid to respondent. Respondent did not report this reduction 
to the U.S. proceeds from the sale in question. The petitioner 
maintains that since there is no indication on the record as to how 
many U.S. transactions involved wire transfer charges or how many U.S. 
customers deducted wire transfer charges from the amount returned to 
respondent, the Department should deduct the verified single 
discrepancy, as a percentage of gross price, from all purchase price 
sales to all customers.
    The respondent argues that since this issue only involved one of 
six purchase price sales examined at verification, only the single sale 
in question should be modified for the discrepancy.
DOC Position
    Wire transfer is one of several common methods of payment by 
respondent's customers. The unreported deduction from invoice price for 
wire transfer charges appeared in one of six sales examined at 
verification. As BIA, we have reduced all sales to that purchase-price 
customer whose payment showed this omission, by the corresponding 
percentage of the unreported reduction to U.S. price.

Comment 72

    The respondent maintains that the Department should use the 
reported interest rate to calculate imputed credit on U.S. sales. The 
respondent maintains that it submitted proper documentation to the 
Department for the reported rate and states that its U.S. subsidiary 
did not have loans during the POI.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. Respondent did provide requested 
documentation for its reported interest rate on September 22, 1994. 
Respondent was fully prepared to review its history of borrowing during 
the POI; the verification team elected not to review the materials, 
thus no negative inference is warranted.

Comment 73

    The respondent maintains that the Department should use the 
expenses reported as adjustments to U.S. price.
DOC Position
    We agree, in part, with the respondent. We are using the data 
submitted to the Department by respondent on December 7, 1994, which 
includes corrections based on the company's verification. We have also 
made minor adjustments, such as that for missing U.S. wire transfer 
charges.

Comment 74

    Respondent contends that its submitted G&A expense was properly 
allocated based on cost of manufacturing (COM). Additionally, 
respondent states that all of its business activities related to 
growing flowers.
    Petitioner alleges that G&A was allocated on the basis of variable 
costs, and asserts that G&A should be allocated based on cultivated 
area because fixed costs associated with business activities not 
concerned with subject merchandise, i.e., a cattle ranch, are very 
different than flowers.
DOC Position
    The Department considers respondent's allocation of G&A based on 
COM to be a reasonable methodology. Additionally, there is no 
information on the record indicating that the respondent was involved 
in activities other than growing flowers during the POI.

Comment 75

    Petitioner claims that rose production costs were understated 
because all production costs were allocated on an equal basis, by area, 
to field crops (containing gypsophilia. flowers) and flowers grown in 
greenhouses.
    Respondent states that its gypsophilia. crop was grown in 
greenhouses and that petitioner provided no evidence to support its 
accusation that gypsophilia. was a field crop. Therefore, the 
Department should reject petitioner's claim.
DOC Position
    There is no compelling evidence to support petitioner's claim that 
respondent's production cost allocation methodology distorts rose 
production costs. Accordingly, we made no adjustment for purposes of 
the final determination.

Grupo Floramerica

Comment 76

    The respondent argues that all of its selling expenses were 
incurred by Floramerica, S.A. and Flores Las Palmas. The respondent 
states that its central office incurs the majority of the selling 
expenses and records them in Floramerica, S.A.'s books. The respondent 
explains that the central office provides selling and support functions 
for all products at all the [[Page 7011]] Group's farms. However, the 
respondent contends that it is impossible to separate selling expenses 
on a farm-specific basis. The respondent maintains that its allocation 
methodology for its indirect selling expenses is correct because the 
total selling expenses to be allocated reflect selling support 
functions for all the Group's products. The respondent argues that it 
would have overstated its total selling expenses allocable to roses if, 
as the Department suggests, it would have used sales revenue from only 
Floramerica, S.A. and Flores Las Palmas.
    The petitioner argues that indirect selling expenses incurred in 
Colombia should be allocated only over sales by Floramerica S.A. and 
Las Palmas. The petitioner maintains that the verification exhibit 
supporting the Department's analysis of respondent's indirect selling 
expenses expressly states ``Total Selling Expenses (Floramerica and 
Palmas)'' allocated by revenue of all farms in the Group. The 
petitioner further argues that the cost verification report does not 
indicate that selling expenses were limited to Floramerica, S.A. and 
Flores Las Palmas.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent. Respondent allocated the indirect selling 
expenses of Floramerica, S.A. and Flores Las Palmas to roses by 
determining the percentage of rose sales as a proportion of sales of 
all products. Because respondent allocated Floramerica S.A.'s and 
Flores Las Palmas' indirect selling expenses by the revenue of all 
related farms in the Group, its calculation understated the indirect 
selling expenses of Floramerica, S.A. and Flores Las Palmas. However, 
because Floramerica S.A. provides sales support for the entire group, 
if we allocated the indirect selling expenses by only Floramerica 
S.A.'s and Flores Las Palmas' revenue, we would overstate their 
indirect selling expenses. Therefore, as there is no way to reallocate 
these expenses, we have accepted the respondent's methodology as 
reasonable.

Comment 77

    Petitioner argues that only income relating directly to 
respondent's short-term assets is permitted as an offset to interest 
expense.
    Respondent contends that the Department should continue to allow 
its total financial income to offset its financial expenses. Respondent 
maintains that the cost verification report does not conclude that only 
a portion of its financial income should be allowed to offset its 
financial expenses. According to the respondent, the cost verification 
report states that financial income generated from short-term 
investments of working capital are generally allowed as an offset to 
financial expenses. Respondent states that its financial income was 
verified without discrepancy.
DOC Position
    Respondent reduced financial expenses for interest income earned 
from certain assets. These assets had maturities ranging from one to 
five years. The Department generally only allows financing expense to 
be offset by short-term investments of working capital (see, Final 
Result of Antidumping Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement from 
Mexico, 58 FR 47256 (September 8, 1993)). The maturities of these 
assets are all greater than one year and therefore cannot be considered 
short-term in nature. Therefore, we disallowed the portion of interest 
income earned from the long term assets.

Comment 78

    Petitioner argues that fixed costs should be included in 
respondent's packing expenses.
    Respondent states that the Department verified its packing 
calculation and its allocation methodology and found no discrepancies. 
Therefore, respondent contends that the Department should use the 
verified packing expense data and not the BIA amount used in the 
preliminary determination. Furthermore, respondent argues that the 
Department should include fixed overhead in the packing costs. 
Respondent further argues that, if the Department decides these costs 
are not packing costs, these costs must be classified as indirect 
selling expenses.

DOC Position

    We agree with respondent that certain fixed overhead costs are part 
of the packing operation. Accordingly, we have included fixed overhead 
related to the packing operation in the packing cost for purposes of 
the final determination.

Comment 79

    Respondent contends that the Department should make year-end 
accounting adjustments which were noted at verification. Respondent 
states that it reported the higher unadjusted costs to the Department 
instead of its actual costs, as adjusted at year-end. Respondent states 
that the most significant of the year-end accounting adjustments 
relates to an over-accrual of pension liability. Respondent states that 
it reported the higher, unadjusted costs rather than the actual labor 
costs incurred during the POI.
    Petitioner agrees with the respondent that the Department should 
make year-end labor adjustments.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent that its submitted cost data did not 
include the year-end accounting adjustments. Accordingly, for purposes 
of the final determination, we corrected the submitted costs to include 
all 1993 year-end adjustments.

Comment 80

    Respondent argues that the Department should accept its reported 
and verified G&A calculation, which was based on cost of goods sold, 
for purposes of the final determination.
    Petitioner agrees with respondent that the Department's normal 
practice is to allocate G&A on the basis of cost of goods sold. 
Petitioner states that there is no apparent reason to depart from the 
normal methodology unless adequate cost data for each respondent is not 
available.
DOC Position
    We agree with both parties. The Department considers respondent's 
allocation of interest expense and G&A based on cost of goods sold to 
be reasonable.

Grupo Intercontinental

Comment 81

    Respondent argues the Department should base its final 
determination on the information submitted by it and verified by the 
Department. It states that, while the Department used BIA as a basis 
for its preliminary determination, the Department noted in that 
determination that it would conduct verification and base its final 
determination on the verified information if these respondents 
submitted ``adequate and timely'' responses to supplemental requests 
for information.
    Respondent states that it filed adequate and timely responses to 
supplemental requests regarding both sales and cost and the Department 
made no further requests for additional information or clarification. 
Moreover, respondent states that the Department conducted a detailed 
verification of the information submitted and found only a few minor 
discrepancies in revenue and charges.
    The petitioner states that respondent's U.S. sales listing is 
unreliable and [[Page 7012]] should be rejected in favor of BIA. The 
petitioner argues that respondent revised its U.S. sales listing twice 
prior to verification and that the Department found additional 
discrepancies with regard to volume and value of sales at verification. 
The petitioner also states that revenue and charges were incorrectly 
reported and identifies discrepancies with respect to box charges, air 
freight, return credits (see Comment 82).
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. While it was not possible to use the 
information submitted by respondent for the preliminary determination, 
the respondent has submitted, and we have accepted, revised information 
which was examined at verification. Although the information examined 
at verification contained some discrepancies, these matters were not so 
significant as to demonstrate that respondent's U.S. sales listing, as 
a whole or in part, was unreliable.
    With respect to the quantity and value of respondent's U.S. sales, 
the discrepancies found were relatively minor. We find no reason to use 
BIA for respondent's U.S. sales response.

Comment 82

    The petitioner states that at least box charges should be assigned 
a best information value equal to the lowest amount reported for any 
sale during the POI or denied altogether as an adjustment. It also 
states that since air freight charges are misallocated by the number of 
stems rather than by weight, the Department should identify the highest 
per-stem charge for any month and apply that charge to all U.S. sales 
as ``best information.''
    The respondent states that the box charge issue noted by the 
petitioner affected only two customers, and was insignificant. The 
respondent also states that the petitioner has confused total box 
charges per observation with the box charge per box. The respondent 
states that the petitioner's allegations with regard to its reporting 
of return credits are similarly groundless and reflect a lack of 
understanding of how the grower reports record return credits. The 
respondent states that nothing on the record or in the sales 
verification report supports the contention that its reporting of 
return credits to the Department was in any way unreliable.
    Respondent also rebuts the petitioner's assertion that air freight 
charges were misallocated since it is charged for air freight on the 
grower's reports by the number of stems and that is, therefore, the 
only reliable basis it has for making this allocation. Respondent adds 
that the grower's reports do indicate air freight attributable to non-
roses (i.e., gypsophilia, and alstromeria) and those amounts were 
deducted from the total allocated to roses. The respondent also states 
that such information was fully verified by the Department and no 
discrepancies were reported.
DOC Position
    With regard to the question of return credits and air freight and 
box charges, the calculation methodologies were reasonable and 
consistent with the information available from grower's reports. With 
regard to return credits, in particular, we noted at verification that 
the respondent was able to link return credits to sales. Moreover, we 
accepted the respondent's explanation that in some instances customers 
claim credits in excess of the gross value of the merchandise and that 
in such instances, the respondent does not make customers adjust for 
such excessive credit claims. We have therefore, made no adjustments to 
the data that respondent submitted regarding these issues.

Comment 83

    Respondent states that for purposes of its final determination the 
Department should accept its minor clarification in its reporting of 
Colombian Flower Council Contributions. The respondent states that 
although certain discrepancies with respect to fees paid to the 
Colombian Flower Council were found at verification, the respondent 
provided information at verification clarifying these discrepancies.
DOC Position
    While certain discrepancies were discovered by the Department 
during verification, we verified the revised data and have used this 
data in our margin calculations.

Comment 84

    Petitioner states that respondent excluded various nonoperating 
expenses from its submitted rose production costs and that the excluded 
items should be added back as current production costs. Petitioner 
asserts that absent any evidence to establish that such costs were 
misclassified in respondent's normal accounting records, there is no 
basis to exclude these costs.
    Respondent maintains that it properly excluded many of the non-
operating expenses noted by the petitioner since these expenses did not 
relate to the current production or sale of roses. Respondent further 
states that it excluded other expenses listed by the petitioner because 
the expenses related to rose production costs from years prior to the 
POI.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner in part. The unreported general income and 
expense items relating to Intercontinental as a whole were included in 
our cost calculations. Certain income and expense items identified 
during the current year relate to prior periods. Similarly, income and 
expense items relating to the current year are not identified until a 
future point in time, thus generating an offsetting effect. Therefore, 
we adjusted the submitted G&A costs to include the unreported income 
and expense items.

Comment 85

    Respondent states that G&A expenses were properly allocated 
according to the number of employees assigned to each flower type. 
Respondent states that the number of workers, by flower type, is a 
reasonable surrogate for cost of goods sold when allocating G&A, since 
labor is the largest expense in flower production.
    Petitioner states that G&A should be reallocated based on cost of 
goods sold or area in production, rather than number of employees. 
Corporate salaries for the finance department, legal department, and 
the like have no relationship to the number of employees by flower 
type. Such costs are generally allocated according to cost of goods 
sold.
DOC Position
    We agree with the petitioner and have reallocated G&A using 
production area. During verification, it was found that the number of 
employees assigned to each flower type was an estimate and could not be 
verified.

Grupo Papagayo

Comment 86

    The petitioner maintains that one of the exhibits (Exhibit 
Indirect-3) collected during respondent's verification shows that 
certain expenses for rents and leases incurred by the sales department, 
and other expenses related to photocopies and building administration 
were not included in the reported indirect selling expenses. The 
petitioner argues that since the expenses are related to the Sales 
Department, they should be included in respondent's indirect selling 
expenses.
    Respondent states that the expenses contested by the petitioner are 
G&A, not selling expenses, and were reported to [[Page 7013]] and 
accepted by the Department as G&A expenses for CV purposes.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the petitioner that the contested expenses were 
related to sales only. Based on our examination of respondent's 
records, we determined that the expenses in question were properly 
classified as G&A expenses. The exhibit to which the petitioner refers 
reflects an account that contains entries related to sales as well as 
to general expenses. At verification, we examined each entry and 
supporting documentation made for a specific month and found that the 
entries classified as G&A expenses were not specifically related to 
sales. Therefore, the Department did not include the expenses to which 
the petitioner referred in the calculation of respondent's indirect 
selling expenses.

Comment 87

    The petitioner maintains that the proportion of expenses related to 
export documentation allocated to rose sales in the U.S. market is 
disproportionate to the ratio of the U.S. market sales to sales in 
other markets. Therefore, the petitioner requests that the Department 
reallocate these expenses based on the ratio of U.S. market sales to 
the sales in other markets.
    Respondent states that the petitioner is mistaken because the 
portion of the verification report to which petitioner refers describes 
the proportion of the export document charges attributed to various 
categories, not just roses.
DOC Position
    The petitioner's interpretation of the verification report is 
incorrect. First, the petitioner interpreted the proportion of expenses 
related to opening and closing registros for all markets as related 
only to U.S. sales. Second, the petitioner erroneously interpreted the 
ratio of rose sales to sales of all products as the ratio of U.S. rose 
sales to sales of roses in all countries. Therefore, the ratios cited 
by the petitioner bear no relationship to each other.
    It should be noted, however, that the expenses related to opening 
and closing registros were not reported to the Department. It was not 
possible to allocate these expenses to rose sales for each market 
because company officials did not provide sufficient information 
necessary for such an allocation. Therefore, the Department included 
the total amount of expenses related to opening and closing registros 
in the calculation of respondent's indirect selling expenses allocated 
to rose sales in the U.S. market.

Comment 88

    The petitioner argues that the expenses related to the Colombian 
Grower's Association (CGA) discovered during verification in 
respondent's accounting records should be included as indirect selling 
expenses. According to the petitioner, there is no evidence concerning 
the functions or activities of the CGA that justifies treating these 
expenses as G&A rather than selling expenses.
    The respondent maintains that the fees paid to the CGA should not 
be treated as indirect selling expenses because CGA does not provide 
sales-related services.
DOC Position
    The Colombian Grower's Association is the same type of entity as 
Asocolflores. During verification, the Department found no evidence 
that this association was involved in selling activities. Therefore, 
the Department did not include these fees as part of respondent's 
selling expenses.

Comment 89

    The petitioner argues that the documentation collected during 
verification shows that certain expenses were not captured in the total 
indirect selling expense amount.
    The respondent maintains that the expenses in question are related 
to fees paid to the Colombian Flower Council, which were reported to 
the Department as direct selling expenses.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent that the expenses to which the 
petitioner refers are related to the fees paid to the Colombian Flower 
Council. Two of these expenses to which the petitioner referred related 
to sales to U.S. customers, the third was for a U.K. customer. At 
verification, we established that the U.S. expenses were included in 
the reported direct selling expenses. Therefore, the Department did not 
include these expenses in the calculation of respondent's indirect 
selling expenses.

Comment 90

    The respondent states that during the POI, it used a U.S. operator 
for all international calls, which were paid for in dollars. According 
to the respondent, the cost of those international calls was properly 
allocated to all international sales, since the calls were made to 
customers throughout the world.
    The petitioner argues that respondent's claim that the telephone 
expenses incurred in U.S. dollars were related to telephone calls to 
all countries cannot be supported. The petitioner requests that the 
Department treat the entire amount of U.S. dollar denominated telephone 
charges as selling expenses related to U.S. sales only.
DOC Position
    During verification we found no evidence that the cost of 
respondent's international phone calls was related to telephone calls 
made to the United States alone. Therefore, the Department used the 
portion of telephone expenses the respondent allocated to U.S. sales in 
the calculation of indirect selling expenses.

Comment 91

    Petitioner stated that drastic pruning and resting should not be 
characterized as preproduction costs. Petitioner maintains that pruning 
is typically performed annually by all rose producers. Petitioner notes 
that these costs are analogous to general maintenance costs on a piece 
of equipment. Accordingly, the costs related to the drastic pruning and 
resting should be expended as incurred, unless respondent's methodology 
can be tied to the normal accounting practices of the company.
    Respondent maintains that the cost of drastic pruning and resting 
are incurred every thirty months, at the end of each production cycle. 
Respondent further notes that these costs are normally capitalized on 
the books and records of the company. Respondent believes that these 
costs are properly characterized as preproduction costs since they 
occur prior to the start of rose production. Respondent notes that the 
reported capitalized pruning and resting costs were verified by the 
Department.
DOC Position
    The drastic pruning/resting crop adjustment methodology is used by 
respondent in its normal course of business, and is in accordance with 
GAAP of Colombia. At verification, the reported costs were reconciled 
to the company's financial records. We further noted at verification 
that respondent manages its plants to produce roses in thirty month 
production cycles. At the end of each production cycle, respondent cuts 
down the rose plants and starts the process over again. Therefore, we 
believe that it is appropriate for the respondent to capitalize the 
costs incurred in preparing for the next production cycle and to 
amortize such costs over the thirty month cycle. The Department 
considers the drastic pruning/resting methodology to be reasonable and 
[[Page 7014]] therefore, no adjustment is deemed necessary.

Comment 92

    Respondent notes that the Department is correct in suggesting that 
the write-off of bad debt is a selling expense. However, the write-off 
of the bad debt is a selling expense related to sales in 1990 and 1991, 
not to sales during the POI. Therefore, the amount of the write-off 
should be excluded from finance expense and should not be included in 
the calculation of POI per unit costs.
    Petitioner argues that the bad debt write-off during the POI should 
be included as a selling expense for the POI. The petitioner notes 
that, in the future respondent will experience bad debt expense related 
to sales occurring in the POI, which would not be included in POI 
costs. Thus, the current write-off of past sales is the best evidence 
of the proper amount to be deducted currently.
DOC Position
    The Department agrees with petitioner. We consider bad debt, by its 
very nature, to be an indirect selling expense since, under generally 
accepted accounting principles, bad debt is recovered over time by 
future price increases (see, Brass Sheet and Strip from France, 52 FR 
6, 812 (DOC 1987)). Bad debts should be recognized when the expense is 
recognized.

Comment 93

    Respondent maintains that the unreported general expense items do 
not relate to rose production during the POI. Respondent asserts that 
they are corrections to sales and production expenses from previous 
years. Therefore, these costs are not properly attributable to the POI. 
Respondent contends that if the Department decides to include these 
costs, then it also should offset them by the related income amounts.
    Petitioner argues that there is no basis to offset G&A expense 
items and year-end accounting adjustments with income unrelated to rose 
production. According to petitioner there is no evidence to support 
respondents' claim for this offset.
DOC Position
    The unreported general income and expense items relate to the 
general activities of respondent as a whole. Certain income and expense 
items identified during the current year relate to prior periods. 
Similarly income and expense items relating to the current year are not 
being identified until a future point in time, thus generating an 
offsetting effect. Therefore, we consider it reasonable to include the 
financial statement general income and expense items in the G&A 
calculation.

Grupo Prisma

Comment 94

    The respondent claims that each of the deficiencies identified by 
the Department as a reason for BIA in the preliminary determination are 
now moot because the problems have been resolved in its September 23, 
1994, submission and at verification. Respondent states that the 
Department thoroughly verified the completeness of its U.S. and home 
market sales reporting, the accuracy of the adjustments and the 
methodology used to consolidate sales of different companies of the 
group. Respondent claims the Department identified only minor data 
entry errors in its sales report. Accordingly, respondent alleges there 
no longer exists any sustainable basis for finding that its response 
contains significant deficiencies or for applying a BIA rate.
    Respondent states that the ``significant findings'' noted in the 
sales verification report all involve minor data entry errors that were 
corrected and verified. Respondent states that none of the errors 
detracts from the overall integrity of the questionnaire response. 
Specifically, respondent indicates that, whether or not Argicola el 
Faro (one of the respondent's growers) was omitted from the corporate 
flow chart is inconsequential as Agricola el Faro's products never 
separately enter the United States. Regarding quantity changes noted in 
the verification report, respondent notes that these were isolated and 
the result of input errors. Finally, respondent states that the 
reporting error to one customer has no impact on its overall numbers 
and that the error worked against it and respondent states that the 
Department should use the corrected sales listing it prepared for this 
customer. The respondent states that the petitioner's entire argument 
for basing the respondent's final determination on BIA is based on a 
misrepresentation of a sentence in a draft version of the verification 
report that the Department has admitted was mistakenly issued to the 
petitioner.
    Finally, respondent alleges that the petitioner took a statement 
out of context from the verification report to suggest that the 
respondent's indirect selling expenses are not accurate. Respondent 
notes that, as its unrelated importer had prepared the noted worksheet 
based on its own documents and records, the information could not be 
verified by using its documents. Moreover, respondent states that even 
disregarding the importer's worksheets and using its own sales values 
did not change the indirect selling expense that it reported. Thus, 
respondent claims there is no basis for the petitioner's charge that 
its response is unreliable.
    The petitioner states that, based upon the results of verification, 
respondent's U.S. sales listing is unreliable and should be rejected in 
favor of BIA. The petitioner states that the Department found numerous 
discrepancies during verification including discrepancies in 
respondent's June sales affecting volume and value and, sometimes, 
both. The petitioner also notes that, with respect to U.S. indirect 
selling expenses, the verification report states that, ``importer's 
worksheets were not maintained as we were unable to verify much of the 
data.'' Therefore, the petitioner claims that the U.S. sales listing is 
not credible. The petitioner suggests that the June sales for which the 
Department checked 100 percent of the transactions might be relied upon 
as the basis for calculating margins for that month. Without similarly 
exhaustive revisions to the sales listing for other months, however, 
the petitioner claims the errors are too numerous to disregard. The 
petitioner, thus, suggests that BIA be used for purposes of the final 
determination.
DOC Position
    Although we used BIA for respondent for purposes of the preliminary 
determination, we conducted a complete and thorough verification of its 
responses. The discrepancies noted at verification were of the type 
normally discovered at verification. We find no reason to reject the 
respondent's response in to to and have used it for purposes of the 
final determination.

Comment 95

    The petitioner alleges that respondent has not included any 
salaries in its indirect selling expenses and references an account for 
the respondent that includes G&A expenses for the company.
    Respondent states that, as its unrelated importers in Miami 
function as its sales force, it does not have a sales force in Miami. 
Respondent notes that the account the petitioner mentions includes all 
expenses for general services, including all administrative and general 
management salaries. Thus, respondent notes that the expenses were 
properly reported as G&A expenses in the CV tables. Respondent claims 
it included all relevant salaries in its [[Page 7015]] calculation of 
indirect selling expenses for the people in Bogota that take care of 
preparing export documentation and coordinating shipments. Respondent 
claims that it has no other salaries related to sales to the United 
States.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. The petitioner's allegation is 
unfounded and we have not adjusted respondent's indirect selling 
expenses to include salaries.

Grupo Sabana

Comment 96

    The petitioner alleges that respondent did not consistently record 
oil and gas charges associated with rose transportation and that for 
certain months these charges were reported under other accounts. The 
petitioner requests that we use, as BIA, the highest cost per unit in a 
given POI month.
    The respondent maintains that it reported all of its freight costs 
and that the Department verified these costs during both the cost and 
sales verifications. The respondent also contends that if there are any 
additional expenses, they are captured in the reported CV. The 
respondent maintains that there is no justification to resort to BIA 
since its reported inland freight expenses tie directly into its 
accounting records. Finally, the respondent notes that if the 
Department deemed it necessary to include freight expenses in the 
freight calculation, the amounts involved are insignificant, and the 
adjustment has no impact.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. We established that the reported oil 
and gas expense plus an amount included on the worksheet sum to the 
expense reported in the respondent's financial statement. We further 
note that during the cost verification not every month had an oil and 
gas expense, but these omissions were due to accounting practices that 
are generally accepted accounting principles in Colombia. Therefore, we 
have accepted the respondent's freight expense allocation methodology.

Comment 97

    The petitioner argues that respondent should not be using the prime 
rate when other U.S. importers that had POI short-term borrowings did 
not obtain such a rate. The petitioner maintains that we should 
increase the respondent's interest rate to be consistent with the 
commercial rate actually charged to other importers during the POI.
    The respondent notes that there is no record evidence that it used 
an inappropriate U.S. interest rate. Therefore, the respondent 
maintains that the Department should accept its U.S. credit expense 
calculation.
DOC Position
    We agree in part with the petitioner. In situations where there are 
no borrowings in the currency of the sales made, we have used external 
information about the cost of borrowings in a particular currency (see 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 59 FR 
50568, October 4, 1994). We are using an average of the interest rates 
reported by those respondents that had actual U.S. borrowings during 
the POI. We consider this to be the best estimate of the U.S. dollar 
borrowing rates for those respondents that had no short-term 
borrowings, as it is based on the actual expenses of other respondents.

Comment 98

    The petitioner argues that the Department should increase the 
number of days used in the respondent's expense calculation because the 
respondent's methodology only accounts for merchandise which has 
already reached U.S. inventory and does not take into account the time 
during which merchandise is transported from the factory to Miami.
    The respondent maintains that in the inventory day calculation the 
Department should not increase the number of days by the amount the 
petitioner is proposing because that amount represents the time it 
takes to transport the product to Toronto and Montreal and not to 
Miami.
DOC Position
    We agree in part with the petitioner. Our verification report at 
exhibit 24 demonstrates that the respondent did not take into account 
the time necessary to transport the merchandise from the factory to 
Miami. Therefore, we added to the number of inventory days an amount 
which other respondents claimed was necessary to transport product from 
the factory to Miami.

Comment 99

    Respondent argues that the Department should allocate certain 
production costs based on the number of beds under cultivation and not 
based on the hectares under cultivation, because all of its 
recordkeeping is based on beds.
    Petitioner contends that allocation by beds is less precise because 
it does not account for walkways, common areas, and there is no 
evidence that subject and nonsubject beds are the same size.
DOC Position
    The Department agrees with the respondent. During verification, the 
Department reviewed the beds under cultivation allocation methodology 
and found it to be a reasonable approach. The methodology is used in 
respondent's normal course of business, and has been accepted in the 
Fresh Cut Flower reviews.

Comment 100

    The petitioner argues that cull revenue should not be offset 
against production costs. Petitioner argues that a certain expense is 
diminished to the extent of the cull revenue.
    Respondent claims that cull revenue must be included in the 
calculation of CV. Respondent argues that there is no justification for 
disallowing the credit to production costs because of where the 
revenues are deposited.
DOC Position
    We agree in part with the petitioner. The Department allowed only 
the rose cull revenue recorded in respondent's normal accounting 
records to offset production costs. All claimed cull revenue which had 
not been appropriately deposited into respondent's bank account has 
been excluded. The cull revenue that is not deposited into respondent's 
bank account is neither recorded nor reported in any of respondent's 
accounting records.

Grupo Sagaro

Comment 101

    The petitioner argues that the discovery of unreported stems that 
were sold to one customer in June 1993 undermines the reliability of 
respondent's submission. The petitioner also contends that the 
verification of February 1993 sales did not include this customer. For 
these reasons, the petitioner argues that the Department should not 
rely on respondent's data in these circumstances. If the Department 
used respondent's data the petitioner argues that it should increase 
the quantities sold to all customers in June proportionately or, at the 
least, increase the quantity sold to this customer.
    The respondent argues that there are no grounds for the 
petitioner's assertion that a minor discrepancy in its sales reporting 
to one customer undermines its response. The respondent maintains that 
this discrepancy accounts for an [[Page 7016]] insignificant amount of 
total U.S. sales. The respondent explains that the error resulted when 
the customer in question changed the format for reporting inventories 
on its growers report. June was the first month of this change and is 
the month in which the error occurred. The respondent maintains that 
the error was limited to this one customer in a single month. Finally, 
the respondent states that the Department verified that it had no sales 
to this customer in February.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the petitioner's assertion that respondent's 
response is unreliable. At verification, we reviewed the volume and 
value of respondent's U.S. sales and found only minor discrepancies, 
none of which would render its response unreliable. Therefore, based on 
the growers report for this customer, we have revised respondent's 
sales listing to reflect the quantity and value of sales to this 
customer during June.

Comment 102

    The petitioner maintains that credit costs should be revised to 
reflect only the short-term interest rate as provided in the sales 
verification report.
    Respondent maintains that it does not object to the use of the 
interest rate the Department calculated at verification for home market 
credit expenses.
DOC Position
    We agree with both parties and have applied the verified home 
market short-term interest rate in the calculation of home market 
credit expenses.

Comment 103

    The respondent argues that we should use its reported credit period 
in its home market credit expense calculation.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the respondent. At verification, we found credit 
periods longer and shorter then the period reported by respondent. 
Therefore, we used the average of the credit periods found at 
verification, because that average most closely reflects the actual 
home market credit periods.

Comment 104

    The petitioner argues that unreported direct selling expenses 
incurred on sales to one customer should be allocated to only subject 
merchandise and not over all other sales. The petitioner states that 
the Department should increase this customer's direct selling expenses 
accordingly and provided a calculation of this expense.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner's argument but not its suggested 
calculation formula. We have increased this customer's direct selling 
expense by the unreported amount and allocated the total of these 
expenses to the rose sales of this customer.

Comment 105

    The petitioner argues that foreign inland freight charges on U.S. 
sales should be increased to reflect charges allocated per stem sold, 
as per the verification report. Additionally, the petitioner requests 
that wire transfer fees be corrected as per the verification report.
DOC Position
    Respondent made these corrections on its December 7, 1994, sales 
listing. We accepted these changes and used them for the final 
determination.

Comment 106

    Respondent argues that the Department should permit it to 
capitalize and amortize certain costs, which would only benefit 
production in future years, but were expensed for financial statement 
purposes.
    Petitioner argues that items expensed in respondent's accounting 
records in the normal course of business should not be capitalized and 
amortized for purposes of the response. Petitioner argues that there is 
no basis on the record, and no verification exhibit, to support the 
claim that such items should be capitalized or to indicate a particular 
useful life for each of the identified costs.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent that these costs benefit future years. 
Accordingly, it is reasonable for these assets to be capitalized in the 
year of acquisition. See also Comment 19.

Comment 107

    Respondent argues that the cost of its worm project should not be 
included in CV. Respondent argues that, although it is theoretically 
possible for the fertilizer generated from the worm project to be used 
on rose plants, the project was not started with that intention and it 
has not analyzed whether the fertilizer would be appropriate for use in 
rose beds. Additionally, respondent notes that the fertilizer from the 
worm project was not used for the production of roses during the period 
of investigation.
    Petitioner claims that costs incurred with respect to the worm 
culture project for soil preparation should be allocated to rose 
production. Petitioner argues that this type of research and 
development (``R&D'') expense should be expensed in the current period. 
Petitioner states that, since the respondent characterizes the project 
as related to rose production, there is no basis to exclude such 
expenses from the current period.
DOC Position
    We agree with petitioner that the worm culture project costs should 
be categorized as R&D. There is no conclusive evidence that this 
project is R&D specific to either rose production or any other type of 
production activity. Therefore, we consider the worm culture project to 
be related to general R&D and, accordingly, have included its costs in 
the G&A expense calculation.

Comment 108

    Petitioner argues that the Department should reject the allocation 
of costs to non-subject merchandise as it was not substantiated on the 
record or during verification. Specifically, petitioner argues that 
verification exhibits 1, 9, and 15 show conflicting results for 
cultivation area of the different flowers grown by respondent. Absent 
evidence to support the basic allocation of costs, the entire cost 
response should be rejected.
    Respondent argues that its allocation of costs by area under 
cultivation is fully supported in the record. Respondent believes that 
petitioner's complaint that the percentage areas in respondent's cost 
exhibits CV-9 and CV-15 do not agree is without merit. Respondent notes 
that those exhibits support the allocations of different classes of 
expenses, relate to different corporate entities, and the percentage 
areas should not agree. Additionally, respondent notes that cost 
exhibit CV-1 does not agree with either of the other two exhibits 
because of a printing error which was addressed at verification.
DOC Position
    We agree with respondent that its allocation of costs between 
subject and non-subject merchandise based on area under cultivation is 
fully supported by data on the record. Therefore, no adjustment is 
deemed necessary for purposes of the final determination.

Grupo Tropicales

Comment 109

    The petitioner notes that, because the Department found 
discrepancies in respondent's return credits for five preselected U.S. 
sales, respondent's return credit reporting is unreliable. The 
petitioner asserts that return credits were overstated, either by 
volume or [[Page 7017]] value, thus increasing U.S. price. The 
petitioner suggests that we reject respondent's return credits claim 
entirely or make a downward adjustment to all U.S. return credits equal 
to the excess amount reported for certain observations.
    The respondent claims that the record does not support taking the 
action requested by the petitioner with respect to its return credits. 
Respondent describes its return credit reporting methodology in its 
brief and notes that its methodology would increase its dumping margin. 
The respondent states that the Department should not disregard or 
adjust return credit volumes and then not adjust return credit values 
or vice versa. Moreover, the respondent claims that there is no reason 
to make any changes to its return credits based on the minor 
discrepancies noted in the verification report.
DOC Position
    We agree with the petitioner that respondent's return credits did 
not verify as reported. We have made a downward adjustment to the sales 
on which return credits were reported. This adjustment equals the 
overall average error as a percentage of gross unit price for the 
months which we have information.

Comment 110

    The petitioner claims that respondent's credit days should not be 
adjusted to account for outstanding return credit claims. The 
petitioner states that verification is not the appropriate time for 
submitting a new and substantially revised claim.
    Respondent states that it revised its calculation of days 
outstanding in its imputed credit calculation to account for return 
credits and revised certain payment and balance figures. The respondent 
states that ignoring return credits leads to an ever increasing balance 
for receivables, a growing portion of which simply are not receivables. 
The respondent claims that the Department should use the days 
outstanding as revised and verified.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent. At verification, respondent presented 
revised U.S. credit days outstanding to account for outstanding return 
credit claims. This constituted a minor change to the data they 
reported. Consistent with our treatment of minor changes noted at 
verification, we have used respondent's revised U.S. credit days.

Comment 111

    The petitioner notes that respondent did not claim to have paid 
commissions on its ESP sales to its related U.S. importer. However, the 
related importer's grower's reports indicate that commissions were 
paid. Thus, the petitioner states that these commissions should be 
deducted from ESP.
    The respondent states that no commission was reported because the 
two companies were related during the period in which the sales took 
place and, thus, the commissions should not be deducted on the ESP 
sales.
DOC Position
    Although respondent indeed pays its related U.S. importer an arm's 
length commission, we have ignored this commission for the reasons 
stated in General Issue Comment 7.

Comment 112

    Respondent claims that we should accept the minor revisions, 
corrections and clarifications presented prior to verification and 
discovered during verification. Specifically, respondent states that 
the Department should accept a correction to the calculation of foreign 
inland freight that was verified. Also, respondent states that none of 
the discrepancies noted at verification had a significant impact on the 
margin calculations.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent that the discrepancies noted at 
verification were minor in nature and we have, thus, used respondent's 
verified data.

Rosex Group

Comment 113

    The petitioner maintains that, according to the sales verification 
report, the respondent did not deduct return credits for one customer 
in the month of February in its sales listing. Therefore, the 
petitioner argues that, as BIA, the Department should make a deduction 
from all of the respondent's U.S. prices equal to the percentage of the 
unreported return credits to revenue for February.
    The respondent argues that the error which affected one return 
credit for one customer for one month of the POI was insignificant. The 
respondent contends that small errors are inevitable when such a large 
amount of information is required. The respondent contends that the 
petitioner's claim that the entire sales listing is unreliable or its 
suggestion that, if the sales listing is accepted, every U.S. sales 
price should be reduced by the percentage of the error, is 
unsupportable.
DOC Position
    We disagree with the petitioner that, due to an error in month of 
the POI for one customer, we should reject the respondent's entire 
response and base its final margin on BIA. At verification we found 
that this discrepancy was limited to one customer and no discrepancies 
were found for other customers. However, because the respondent did not 
report any quality credits for this customer, we have based the return 
credits for this customer on BIA. We reduced the respondent's U.S. 
gross unit price in each month of the POI by the percentage of returned 
credits to sales during the month examined at verification.

Comment 114

    The petitioner contends that respondent failed to allocate foreign 
inland freight costs to stems sold because it included ``stems dumped'' 
in its formula for allocating freight costs. Therefore, the petitioner 
maintains that the freight costs per box decreased when the respondent 
sold fewer boxes than it shipped in a given month. The petitioner 
argues that, as the Department found in its verification report, the 
respondent should have increased its cost per box shipped in order to 
allocate its total foreign inland freight to roses sold. The petitioner 
further argues that the Department should, as BIA, apply foreign inland 
freight charges equal to the highest calculated charge according to the 
respondent's methodology, or to the amount calculated on shipments in 
which the total number of stems shipped equalled the number of stems 
sold.
    The respondent argues that it reported all of its foreign inland 
freight expenses during the POI. Therefore, the respondent contends, it 
did not underreport or overreport its foreign inland freight in any 
way. The respondent maintains that its allocation methodology is more 
accurate than directly allocating monthly costs to monthly sales. The 
respondent contends that its methodology correlates freight expenses 
with sales that were not made in the same month that the expenses were 
incurred. The respondent states that this methodology prevents the 
distortional effects of unadjusted monthly per unit foreign inland 
freight costs. The respondent maintains that the Department should not 
penalize it for reporting its foreign inland freight in the most 
accurate manner possible and should accept its methodology. The 
respondent argues, alternatively, that [[Page 7018]] the Department can 
use the verified figures and calculate a simple monthly foreign inland 
freight expense.
DOC Position
    We agree with the petitioner that the respondent's methodology did 
not account for roses which were shipped but not sold for certain 
customers. At verification, we found that when customers did not sell 
the same amount of roses which were shipped in a given month, the 
allocation of foreign inland freight expenses were either overstated or 
understated. However, we agree that the respondent attempted to provide 
the most specific inland freight expenses possible and that the total 
yearly amount of inland freight was verified. Since the Department 
decided to average USP by all roses combined, we have recalculated the 
respondent's foreign inland freight expenses for all customers with 
this expense using a yearly allocation without regard to stem length or 
rose type.

Comment 115

    The petitioner states that, according to the sales verification 
report, the methodology the respondent used to report air freight for 
one of its customers is flawed. Therefore, the petitioner argues that, 
as BIA, the Department should deduct the highest per stem air freight 
charge calculated for any sale to that customer.
    The respondent contends that the Department should correct the 
minor discrepancy in its air freight calculation and use the verified 
figures. The respondent argues that a discrepancy of this limited 
magnitude should not result in BIA as the petitioner argues.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent that air freight expenses for those 
months that we verified (i.e., May and October) should be applied 
because this discrepancy was limited to one customer. Because we found 
that the respondent overstated and understated this expense in the 
months reviewed at verification we have added the aggregated amount of 
the understated air freight expenses for this customer for the verified 
months and applied that amount to all other months during the POI for 
this customer.

Comment 116

    The petitioner maintains that the respondent offset interest 
expenses with ``other'' financial income. Since the Department found 
that the respondent had no short-term interest income, the petitioner 
argues the ``other'' financial income should be disregarded and that 
the interest expense cannot be offset for purposes of the final 
determination.
    The respondent argues that the absence of short-term interest 
income has no relevance as to whether the respondent had other 
financial income relating to production that should be included in CV. 
The respondent maintains that the Department verified its financial 
income and noted no discrepancies. Additionally, respondent states that 
other financial income, not short-term interest income, was used as an 
offset to interest expense and the fact that it was not short-term 
interest income is not relevant.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioner. We disregarded other financial income 
as an offset to interest expense because it is Department practice to 
only allow an offset to interest expense for interest income generated 
from short-term investments of working capital. Since the other 
financial income was not generated from short-term investments of 
working capital, the offset was disallowed.

Comment 117

    The respondent argues that the Department should use credit periods 
based on actual payment data which was verified by the Department with 
only minor discrepancies.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent and have used the verified 
information.

Comment 118

    The respondent argues that the Department should use its verified 
indirect selling expense information for purposes of the final 
determination.
DOC Position
    We agree with the respondent and have used the verified 
information.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of fresh cut roses from Colombia, as defined in the 
``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The U.S. Customs 
Service shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to 
the estimated margins amount by which the FMV of the subject 
merchandise exceeds the USP, as shown below. The weighted-average 
dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                   percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agrorosas.....................................................      0.00
Grupo Papagayo (and its related farms Agricola Papagayo,                
 Inversiones Calypso S.A., Omni Flora Farms Inc., and Perci             
 S.A.)........................................................      3.02
Flores Mocari S.A. (and its related farms Cultivos Miramonte            
 and Devor Colombia)..........................................      3.26
Grupo Sabana (and its related farms Flore de la Sabana S.A.             
 and Roselandia S.A.).........................................      5.80
Flores la Frangancia..........................................      3.31
Grupo Benilda (and its related farms Agricola La Maria S.A.,            
 Agricola La Celestina Ltda., and Agricola Benilda Ltda.).....      5.07
Grupo Clavecol (and its related farms Claveles Colombianos              
 Ltda., Sun Flowers Ltda., Fantasia Flowers Ltda., Splendid             
 Flowers Ltda.)...............................................      1.56
Floramerica Group (and its related farms Floramerica S.A.               
 (Santa Lucia and Santa Barbara Farms), Jardines de Colombia            
 Ltda., Flores Las Palmas Ltda., Cultivos del Caribe Ltda.,             
 Jardines del Valle Ltda., and Cultivos San Nocolas Ltda.)....      4.95
Rosex (and its related farms Rosex Ltda. (La Esquina and                
 Paraiso Farms), Induflora Ltda., and Rosas Sausalito Ltda.)..      3.06
Grupo Sagaro (and its related farms Flores Sagaro S.A. and Las          
 Flores S.A.).................................................      0.00
Grupo Tropicales (and its related farms Rosas Colombianas               
 Ltda., Happy Candy Ltda., Mercedes Ltda., and Flores                   
 Tropicales Ltda.)............................................      0.00
Grupo Prisma (and its related farms Flores del Campo Ltda.,             
 Flores Prisma S.A., Flores Acuarela S.A., Flores el Pincel             
 S.A., Rosas del Colombia Ltda., Agropecuaria Cuernavaca                
 Ltda.).......................................................      1.29
Grupo Bojaca (and its related farms Agricola Bojaca Ltda.,              
 Universal Flowers, and Plantas y Flores Tropicales Ltda.               
 (Tropifora)).................................................     22.14
Andes Group (and its related farms Flores Horizonte, Cultivos           
 Buenavista, Flores de los Andes, and Inversiones                       
 Penasblancas)................................................      0.00
Caicedo Group (and its related farms Agrobosque, Productos el           
 Rosal S.A., Productos el Zorro S.A., Exportaciones Bochia              
 S.A.--Flora Ltda., Flores del Cauca, Aranjuez S.A., Andalucia          
 S.A., Inverfloral S.A., and Great America Bouquet)...........     36.04
Grupo Intercontinental (and its related farms Flora                     
 Intercontinental and Flores Aguablanca)......................     11.94
All Others....................................................      6.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our [[Page 7019]] determination. As 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, within 45 days. If the ITC determines that material 
injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceedings 
will be terminated and all securities posted as a result of the 
suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled. However, if 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, we will issue an 
antidumping duty order directing Customs officers to assess an 
antidumping duty on fresh cut roses from Colombia entered or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension 
of liquidation.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) in these investigations of their 
responsibility covering the return or destruction of proprietary 
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). 
Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4).

    Dated: January 26, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-2608 Filed 2-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P