[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49579-49582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23792]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-403-801]
Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway, Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by three respondents and the
petitioner, The Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade (FAST), the
Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic
salmon (salmon) from Norway. The review covers 24 exporters, and the
period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994.
We preliminarily determined that sales have been made below the
foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs to assess antidumpting duties equal to the difference between
the United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4195 or 482-3814,
respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 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.
[[Page 49580]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 12, 1991, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on salmon from Norway (56 FR 14920). The Department published a
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' on April 7,
1994 (59 FR 16615). On April 29, 1994, the petitioner, FAST, requested
that we conduct an administrative review of 24 exporters, listed below,
for the period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994. On April 29,
1994, three respondents asked to be reviewed: Norwegian Salmon A/S,
Hallvard Leroy A/S, and Mowi A/S. We published a notice of ``Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on May
12, 1994 (59 FR 24683). On June 29, 1994, the Department received
timely requests from Hallvard Leroy A/S and Mowi A/S for withdrawal
from this administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(a)(5), the Department terminated the review for Hallvard Leroy
A/S, and Mowi A/S on September 16, 1994 (59 FR 47610).
Scope of the Review
The merchandise covered by this review is fresh and chilled
Atlantic salmon (salmon). It encompasses the species of Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) marketed as specified herein; the subject merchandise
excludes all other species of salmon: Danube salmon; Chinook (also
called ``king'' or ``quinnat''); Coho (``silver''); Sockeye
(``redfish'' or ``blueback''); Humpback (``pink''); and Chum (``dog'').
Atlantic salmon is whole or nearly whole fish, typically (but not
necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and cleaned, with the head on. The
subject merchandise is typically packed in fresh water ice (chilled).
Excluded from the subject merchandise are fillets, steaks, and other
cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or
otherwise processed Atlantic salmon. Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon
is currently provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
subheading 0302.12.00.02.09. The HTS item number is provided for
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. This review covers
24 manufacturers/exporters and the period of review is April 1, 1993
through March 31, 1994.
No Shipments
There were 17 firms that reported they made no shipments of the
subject merchandise during the period of review, which was verified
with the U.S. Customs Service. The two firms which had not been
reviewed previously will receive the ``all other rate'' of 23.80
percent. The 15 previously reviewed firms will continue to receive
their current rates.
Best Information Available
Five exporters failed to respond to our questionnaire. Therefore,
we based the margins for these firms on the best information otherwise
available. In determining what to use as BIA, the Department uses the
following two-tier hierarchy to separate cooperative firms from non-
cooperative firms (see Final Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review of Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.,
58 FR 39739, July 26, 1993):
1. When a company refuses to cooperate with the Department or
otherwise significantly impedes these proceedings, 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 prior administrative reviews; or (2) the
highest rate found in this review for any firm for the same class or
kind of merchandise in the same country of origin.
2. When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for
information and, substantially cooperates in verification, but fails
to provide the information requested in a timely manner or in the
form required, or was unable to substantiate it, we used as BIA the
higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to the firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation
or a prior administrative review or if the firm has never before
been investigated or reviewed, the all others rate from the LTFV
investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for
the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country
of origin.
We used first-tier BIA for five exporters, Artic Group, Fresh
Marine Co. Ltd., Greig Norwegian Salmon, Norwegian Taste Company, and
Victoria Seafood, which failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaires. The rate we used was 31.81 percent, the highest rate
from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.
United States Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, the Department based
USP on purchase price, because the merchandise was sold to unrelated
U.S. purchasers prior to importation.
Purchase price is based on airpacked, c.i.f. prices to unrelated
customers in the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable,
for air freight, foreign inland freight, inland/marine insurance and
Norwegian export duties. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
In accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the Department
determined that home market sales did not constitute a viable market
for calculating FMV. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b) of
the Department's regulations, the Department chose sales to France as
the basis of FMV. France is the largest third country market with
merchandise most similar to that sold in the United States, based on
information submitted by both Skaarfish and Norwegian Salmon. Because
Skaarfish and Norwegian Salmon were found to have made sales at prices
below the cost of production (COP) during the investigation, and in the
first administrative review with respect to Skaarfish, the Department
initiated a COP investigation for both companies in this administrative
review. See memo to Holly A. Kuga from Laurie A. Lucksinger, June 21,
1994, on the record found in room B-099 at the Department.
In comparing third-country sales to COP, we used the production
costs incurred by the fish farmers, the actual producers of the subject
merchandise, to calculate the COP benchmark. The statute is concerned
specifically with the cost of production of the merchandise, and
Skaarfish and Norwegian Salmon do not produce the salmon that each
sells. Department practice in such situations is to compare the
production costs of the producer, in this case, the fishfarmers, plus
the producer's selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A),
plus the SG&A of the seller (Skaarfish or Norwegian Salmon), to the
seller's home market/third country sales to determine whether home
market/third country sales were made below the COP. See Final
Determination of Sales at less Than Fair Value: Fresh and Chilled
Atlantic Salmon from Norway 56 FR 7661 (February 25, 1991); Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Canada 56 FR 38408 (August 13, 1991 .
Sampling
Since there were approximately 50 salmon farmers that supplied
Skaarfish during the period of review, the Department determined that
sampling was both administratively necessary and methodologically
appropriate to calculate a representative cost of producing the subject
merchandise for purposes of this administrative review. Pursuant to
Section 777A of the Act, on September 23, 1994, the Department issued a
memorandum recommending the use of sampling. Based on comments
[[Page 49581]]
submitted by the petitioner and respondent, the Department determined
that the most significant factor influencing the costs of producing
salmon is farm location. We allocated the same across regions on the
basis of each region's share of Skaarfish's total purchase during the
POR.
To sample farms from each region, we assigned each farm points
according to its percentage share of total volume of sales to
Skaarfish. We used unequal selection probabilities because we are
estimating a volume weighted-average of farm-specific costs. First, we
assigned each farm points according to that farm's weighted-average
percentage of sales volume to Skaarfish. One point was given for each
\1/2\ percent of sales to Skaarfish. Each farm was represented in the
sample pool in proportion to the number of points it received. For
example, a farm that comprised 25 percent of sales to Skaarfish would
receive 50 points. In this way, the farm with a greater volume of sales
had a greater likelihood of being selected than the farm with a smaller
volume of sales to Skaarfish.
From the 50 farms, we made two selections from the northern region
and thirteen selections from the southern region for a total of 15
selections. Of the 15 selections, two farms were chosen twice and one
farm was chosen three times. We used a simple average for calculating
the costs of the sample pool because we weighted each farm according to
its share of sales to Skaarfish in selecting the sampled farms.
When a farm received a BIA rate as its COP, we did not exclude it
from the sample pool. The elimination of non-responding farms from the
sample would reward non-responding farms and could encourage non-
compliance in future reviews. Moreover, it would impair the integrity
of the sample because it would detract from the randomness of the
results.
Since only nine fish farmers supplied respondent Norwegian Salmon
during the POR, the Department determined that sampling was unnecessary
for this firm. We sent COP questionnaires through Norwegian Salmon to
all nine salmon farmers, three of which responded. Similarly, we sent
COP questionnaires through Skaarfish to its eleven salmon farmers that
were selected in our sample, seven of which responded. These responses,
along with deficiency responses and verification results, were analyzed
and relied upon in reaching these preliminary results of review.
We calculated the COP for each farm by summing all costs for the
1992 generation salmon. These costs include smolt, feed, labor, and
overhead. We allocated these costs on a per kilogram basis over net
production quantities. We then adjusted those costs to reflect losses
in the processing stage. General and administrative expenses and net
interest expenses incurred for the sale of salmon in 1993 were
allocated to the salmon sold during the period of review.
Based on information gathered at verification we adjusted the
farmers' data as appropriate.
For the farms that did not respond to the questionnaire, we used
best information available (BIA) to determine their COP. This BIA was
based on the highest COP we calculated for the responding farms
supplying each exporter.
We calculated, for each exporter, a simple average COP of their
farmers' individual COPs. We then added that exporter's selling and
general and administrative expenses to the simple-averaged farmer COP.
We calculated the total COP on a Norwegian Kroner per-kilogram basis.
Cost Test Results
Third country prices were compared to the calculated COP. We
adjusted third country prices to reflect deductions for foreign inland
freight, inland/marine insurance, third-country market credit,
Norweigian export duties, brokerage and handling, freight, third-
country market import duties, and third-country market warranties.
Because there were no commissions in the third-country, we deducted
indirect selling expenses in amounts not exceeding U.S. commissions. We
determined that between 10 and 90 percent of sales of both firms were
made at prices below total COP and over an extended period of time.
Therefore, we disregarded those sales made below cost and compared the
FMV of the remaining sales to the U.S. price.
Preliminary Results of Review
We have preliminarily determined that the following margins exist
for the period April 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABA A/S....................................................... \1\ 31.8
1
Artic Group................................................... \2\ 31.8
1
Artic Products Norway A/S..................................... \1\ 31.8
1
Brodrene Sirevag A/S.......................................... \1\ 23.8
0
Cocoon Ltd A/S................................................ \1\ 31.8
1
Delfa Norge A/S............................................... \1\ 31.8
1
Delimar A/S................................................... (\3\)
Deli-Nor A/S.................................................. (\3\)
Fjord Trading Ltd. A/S........................................ \1\ 23.8
0
Fresh Marine Co. Ltd.......................................... \1\ 31.8
1
Greig Norwegian Salmon........................................ \2\ 31.8
1
Harald Mowinckel A/S.......................................... \1\ 23.8
0
Imperator de Norvegia......................................... \1\ 31.8
1
More Seafood A/S.............................................. \1\ 31.8
1
Nils Willksen A/S............................................. \1\ 31.8
1
North Cape Fish A/S........................................... \1\ 31.8
1
Norwegian Salmon A/S.......................................... 3.07
Norwegian Taste Company A/S................................... \2\ 31.8
1
Olsen & Kvalheim A/S.......................................... \1\ 23.8
0
Sekkingstad A/S............................................... \1\ 23.8
0
Skaarfish-Mowi A/S............................................ 1.58
Timar Seafood A/S............................................. \1\ 31.8
1
Victoria Seafood A/S.......................................... \2\ 31.8
1
West Fish Ltd. A/S............................................ \1\ 23.8
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments during the period; margin from the last administrative
review.
\2\ No response; highest margin from the original LTFV investigation.
\3\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm had no
individual rate from any segment of this proceeding, so we are
applying the all others rate from the LTFV investigation.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions
concerning all respondents directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
firms will be each firm's rate as established in the final results of
this administrative 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, or the original LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters not previously reviewed will be 23.80
percent, the all other rate from the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice, and may request a hearing within 10
days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held as early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days
after the date of
[[Page 49582]]
publication, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs or other
written comments, from interested parties may be submitted not later
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. The Department will publish the final results of review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written comments or hearing.
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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: September 15, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23792 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M