[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49577-49579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23883]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-201-601]


Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Preliminary Results and 
Termination in Part 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 requests by the Floral Trade Council 
(petitioner) and one respondent, 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 
ten producers/exporters, and entries of the subject merchandise into 
the United States during the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 
1993. We have preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for 
four of these 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: Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery, 
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-
4733.

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 9, 1993, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping 
duty order (58 FR 18374). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), the 
petitioner requested an administrative review on April 30, 1993. Also 
on that date, Rancho Guacatay 

[[Page 49578]]
(Guacatay) requested that the Department conduct a review, and upon 
completion of the review, revoke the antidumping order as it pertains 
to Guacatay. We published a notice of initiation on May 27, 1993 (58 FR 
3076), covering Guacatay, Daisy, Visaflor, Rancho el Aguaje (Aguaje), 
Rancho el Toro (Toro), Rancho del Pacifico (Pacifico), Florex S.P.R. 
(Florex), Tzitzic Tareta, S. de R.L. (Tzitzic Tareta), Rancho Alisitos 
(Alisitos), Rancho Mision el Descanso, Rancho Las Dos Palmas, and Las 
Flores de Mexico, and the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993.
    On August 17 and 18, 1993, Daisy and Visaflor stated that they did 
not ship subject merchandise from Mexico to the United States during 
the POR. On November 15, 1994, the Department was informed that Rancho 
Dos Palmas ceased to exist in 1986, and became Aguaje. (See memorandum 
to the file dated 5/15/95.)
    On August 25, 1993, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for 
review with respect to Florex. Because there were no other requests for 
review of this company from any other interested party, the Department 
is now terminating this review with respect to Florex, in accordance 
with 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations. We shall instruct 
the Customs Service to liquidate Florex's entries. Because Florex is a 
previously reviewed company, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate currently in effect for Florex.
    The Department received no questionnaire responses from Tzitzic 
Tareta, Alisitos, Mision el Descanso, and Las Flores de Mexico. 
Therefore, we have based our analysis of these four respondents on the 
best information available (BIA).

Verification

    From March 20 through March 30, 1995, the Department conducted 
verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by Aguaje, 
Guacatay, Toro, and Pacifico. We used standard verification procedures, 
including examination of relevant accounting records and original 
source documents, provided by the respondents.

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, 1992, through March 31, 
1993.

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).) In calculating United States price, we used 
purchase price or exporter's sales price (ESP), both as defined in 
section 772 of the Act. Purchase price and ESP were based, where 
applicable, on the packed f.o.b. prices to the first unrelated 
purchaser in the United States.
    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 ESP. Where sales were 
made through a related or unrelated consignment sales agent in the 
United States to an unrelated customer after the date of importation, 
we also used ESP as the basis for determining United States price, in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions from 
purchase price, where applicable, for foreign and U.S. inland freight, 
Mexican Customs clearance fees, and U.S. and Mexican brokerage and 
handling charges. We made additional deductions from ESP, as 
appropriate, for commissions to unrelated parties, 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. 
Consistent with our past practice concerning perishable products, we 
included all below-cost sales in the home market if less than 50 
percent of respondent's sales were below the COP, if we determined that 
the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities over an 
extended period of time. We determined that below-cost sales were made 
over an extended period of time if they occurred in at least three of 
the months in which sales were made. If between 50 and 90 percent of 
respondent's sales were below the COP, we disregarded only the below-
cost sales.
    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, fabrication, 
general expenses, and profit. Where the actual cost for general 
expenses was below the statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of 
materials and fabrication, we added the statutory minimum amount 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, fabrication, and general expenses, we added the statutory 
minimum. Where the actual amounts of general expenses and profit were 
above the statutory minimum amounts, we added the actual amounts.
    Where applicable, we made adjustments for inland freight, 
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, and Las Flores de Mexico, we have 
determined that they are uncooperative respondents. As a 

[[Page 49579]]
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, 1992, through March 31, 1993:

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

    Because Guacatay received a preliminary margin of 39.95 percent for 
the 1991-1992 review period, we have preliminarily determined not to 
revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Guacatay. (See Notice 
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 60 FR 1209 (April 17, 1995).)
    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. 95-23883 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P