[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49567-49568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23789]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-201-601]


Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and termination in part of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Floral Trade Council 
(petitioner), and three respondents, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Mexico. The review covers 
eleven producers/exporters, and entries of the subject merchandise into 
the United States during the period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 
1994. We have preliminarily determined to assign margins based on the 
best information available (BIA) to five of these producers due to 
their failure to respond to our request for information. We have 
preliminarily determined that zero margins exist for three other 
producers. Two producers, Rancho Daisy (Daisy) and Visaflor F. de P.R. 
(Visaflor), made no shipments to the United States during the period of 
review (POR).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5831/4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 23, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Mexico (52 
FR 13491). On April 7, 1994, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping 
duty order (59 FR 16615). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), 
petitioner requested an administrative review on April 29, 1994. Also 
on that date, Rancho Guacatay (Guacatay), Rancho el Toro (Toro), and 
Rancho Aguaje (Aguaje) requested that the Department conduct a review, 
and upon completion of the review, revoke the antidumping order as it 
pertains to all three producers. We published a notice of initiation on 
May 12, 1994 (59 FR 24683), covering Visaflor, Tzitzic Tareta, Daisy, 
Rancho Alisitos (Alisitos), Rancho Mision el Descanso (Mision el 
Descanso), Rancho Las Dos Palmas (Las Dos Palmas), Las Flores de Mexico 
(Las Flores), Rancho del Pacifico (Pacifico), Aguaje, Toro, Guacatay, 
and Mexipel, S.A. de CV (Mexipel) and the period April 1, 1993, through 
March 31, 1994.
    On August 23 and May 25, 1994, Daisy and Visaflor respectively 
stated that they did not ship subject merchandise from Mexico to the 
United States during the POR. We verified their claim through the U.S. 
Customs Service. On November 15, 1994, the Department was informed that 
Las Dos Palmas ceased to exist in 1986, and became Aguaje. (See 
memorandum to the file dated 5/15/95.) The Department received no 
questionnaire responses from Tzitzic Tareta, Alisitos, Mision el 
Descanso, Las Flores, and Mexipel. Therefore, we have based our results 
for these five respondents on BIA.

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise 
stated, all citations to the statutes and to the Department's 
regulations are references to the provisions as they existed on 
December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are certain fresh cut flowers, 
defined as standard carnations, standard chrysanthemums, and pompon 
chrysanthemums. During the POR, such merchandise was classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) items 
0603.10.7010 (pompon chrysanthemums), 0603.10.7020 (standard 
chrysanthemums), and 0603.10.7030 (standard carnations). The HTSUS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The 
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the order.
    This review covers sales of the subject merchandise entered into 
the United States during the period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 
1994.

United States Price

    As in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and in 
all prior administrative reviews, all United States prices were weight-
averaged on a monthly basis to account for the perishability of the 
product. In accordance with the methodology established in the 1989-
1990 review, we also calculated United States price by flower type, 
without regard to specific grades. (See Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 
FR 29621 (June 28, 1991).)
    For sales made directly to unrelated parties prior to importation 
into the United States, we based the United States price on purchase 
price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. For sales to the 
first unrelated purchaser that took place after importation into the 
United States, we based United States price on exporter sales price 
(ESP). Purchase price and ESP transactions were based, where 
applicable, on the packed f.o.b. prices to the first unrelated 
purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from purchase price 
and ESP, where applicable, for foreign and U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
and Mexican Customs clearance fees, U.S. and Mexican brokerage and 
handling charges, indirect selling expenses, and credit. No other 
adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    In calculating foreign market value (FMV), we used home market 
prices to unrelated purchasers or constructed value (CV), as defined in 
section 773 of the Act.
    Because the Department determined during the prior completed 
administrative review that Guacatay made sales in the home market below 
the cost of production (COP)(See Final Results of Administrative 
Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 57 FR 19597 (May 7, 
1992)), we initiated a COP investigation with respect to Guacatay. We 
tested, on a monthly sales aggregate basis, whether net home market 
price was greater than the sum of cost of production (COP) and packing. 
We determined that no sales in the home market were made below the cost 
of production.
    Where applicable, home market price was based on the packed, 
delivered price to unrelated purchasers in the home market. When CV was 
used, it consisted of the sum of the costs of materials, labor, direct 
and indirect overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), and 

[[Page 49568]]
profit. We added the greater of the actual value for SG&A or the 
statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of materials and 
fabrication, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. Where the 
actual profit was less than the statutory minimum of eight percent of 
the sum of materials, labor, direct and indirect overhead, and SG&A, we 
added the statutory minimum.
    Where applicable, we made adjustments for commissions, indirect 
selling expenses, credit, and differences in packing costs. No other 
adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Best Information Available
    Because we received no questionnaire responses from Tzitzic Tareta, 
Alisitos, Mision el Descanso, Las Flores, and Mexipel, we have 
determined that they are uncooperative respondents. As a result, in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have determined that the 
use of BIA is appropriate. Whenever, as here, a company refuses to 
cooperate with the Department, or otherwise significantly impedes an 
antidumping proceeding, we use as BIA the higher of (1) the highest of 
the rates found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise 
in the same country of origin in the LTFV investigation or in prior 
administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in this review 
for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise. (See 
Antifriction Bearings from France, et. al; Final Results of Review, 58 
FR 39729 (July 26, 1993).) As BIA, we assigned the rate of 39.95 
percent, which is the second highest rate found for any Mexican flower 
producer from the prior reviews and the LTFV investigation. We have 
selected this rate because the highest rate found for any Mexican 
flower producer in prior reviews and the LTFV investigation, 264.43 
percent, is not representative.
    This rate was due to a company's extraordinarily high business 
expenses during the review period resulting from investment activities 
which were uncharacteristic of the other reviewed companies. Therefore, 
we found it inappropriate to use this rate as BIA, both in prior 
reviews and in this review. (See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 56 
FR 29621, 29623 (June 28, 1991).)

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visaflor.....................................................   \1\ 0.00
Rancho Daisy.................................................   \1\ 0.00
Rancho del Pacifico..........................................       0.00
Rancho el Toro...............................................       0.00
Rancho Guacatay..............................................       0.00
Rancho Aguaje................................................       1.54
Mexipel, S.A. de CV..........................................      39.95
Tzitzic Tareta...............................................      39.95
Rancho Alisitos..............................................      39.95
Rancho Mision el Descanso....................................      39.95
Las Flores de Mexico.........................................     39.95 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant 
  segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.            

     We have preliminarily determined not to revoke the antidumping 
order with regard to Guacatay, Toro, and Aguaje, because they 
preliminarily received a non-de minimis dumping margin in the 1991-92 
review. If those results become final, these producers will not be 
eligible for revocation in this review because they will not have three 
consecutive reviews with zero margins.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the 
publication date of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the result of its analysis of issues raised in any such case 
briefs.
    The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies shall be those rates established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
shall be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the 
cash deposit rate will be 18.28 percent, the all others rate 
established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 
of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: September 15, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23789 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510DS--P