[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 151 (Monday, August 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40604-40607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-201-601]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 26, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from 
Mexico. The period of review is April 1, 1993 through March 31, 1994.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, 
and due to the correction of a clerical error, we have made certain 
changes for the final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1996.

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-
5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 26, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 49567) the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from 
Mexico (52 FR 13491 (April 23, 1987)). The preliminary results 
indicated that no dumping margins existed for three of the respondents 
in this review: Rancho Guacatay (Guacatay), Rancho el Toro (Toro), and 
Rancho del Pacifico (Pacifico). Rancho el Aguaje (Aguaje) received a 
margin of 1.54 percent. Moreover, we applied dumping margins based on 
the best information available (BIA) to Mexipel, S.A. de CV, Tzitzic 
Tareta, Rancho Mision el Descanso, Rancho Alisitos, and Las Flores de 
Mexico, because they failed to answer the antidumping questionnaire. 
Two producers, Visaflor F. de P.R. (Visaflor) and Rancho Daisy (Daisy), 
made no shipments to the United States during the period of review.

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

    The Department has conducted 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 period of review (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 U.S. Customs 
Service (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

[[Page 40605]]

States during the period April 1, 1993 through March 31, 1994.

Analysis of the Comments Received

    The Floral Trade Council, the petitioner, and Aguaje submitted case 
briefs and rebuttal comments on October 26, 1995, and November 6, 1995, 
respectively. We received no other comments on the preliminary results.

Comment 1

    Aguaje requests that the Department reallocate its reported 
indirect selling expenses for the final results. Aguaje claims that its 
reported methodology improperly allocated its indirect selling expenses 
solely to the month in which such expenses were incurred. Aguaje argues 
that since certain of its indirect selling expenses were unevenly 
distributed on a monthly basis, their allocation methodology distorted 
the per unit amount reported for one month for which it had unusually 
high indirect selling expenses. Aguaje argues further that indirect 
selling expenses are general selling expenses which are not related 
only to the sales in the particular month in which the expenses were 
incurred, but cover the activity over a longer period. Therefore, 
Aguaje asserts that its indirect selling expenses should be reallocated 
by summing up its total expense amount for the entire POR and 
allocating over total sales volume, in order to establish an even 
distribution.
    The petitioner contends that Aguaje is attempting to reallocate its 
expenses due to the realization that its allocation methodology 
resulted in unfavorable results for a particular month. The petitioner 
asserts that the Department is not obliged to reallocate Aguaje's 
indirect selling expenses, because Aguaje had already allocated those 
expenses in a manner consistent with our questionnaire, and had ample 
opportunity to revise its methodology prior to the preliminary 
determination. The petitioner stated that should the Department decide 
to reallocate Aguaje's indirect selling expenses, we should be sure to 
reallocate those selling expenses based on resale prices to unrelated 
parties, rather than transfer prices between Aguaje and its U.S. 
subsidiary.

The Department's Position

    We agree with Aguaje and therefore have reallocated its total 
indirect selling expenses incurred during the POR over total quantity 
of sales made to unrelated parties during the POR. We agree with 
Aguaje's contention that indirect selling expenses are period costs 
which help maintain sales operations over the entire POR. Aguaje's 
revised methodology is in line with this reasoning and previous 
determinations made by the Department. See e.g., Canned Pineapple Fruit 
from Thailand (Final Determination), 60 FR 29553, 29567, June 5, 1995; 
and Certain Electrical Conductor Aluminum Redraw Rod from Venezuela 
(Preliminary Determination), 53 FR 3614, February 8, 1988.
    We agree with petitioners that we are not obliged to accept 
Aguaje's reallocation methodology. However, because the revised 
methodology uses previously submitted data, provides for a more 
representative distribution of indirect selling expenses, and is 
consistent with previous determinations made by the Department (see 
above), we have accepted the revised methodology and allocated total 
POR indirect selling expenses over total quantity of sales made to 
unrelated parties for these final results.

Comment 2

    The petitioner claims that the Department overstated exporter's 
sales prices (ESP) by failing to deduct commissions paid to related 
parties. The petitioner states that the statute and the Department's 
regulations require the Department to deduct U.S. commissions and 
indirect selling expenses, regardless of whether the consignment agent 
is a related party. For this reason, the petitioner argues, the 
Department should reconsider its treatment of related party commissions 
in this case and as articulated in Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia and 
Fresh Cut Roses from Ecuador, 60 FR 6980, 7019 (Feb. 6, 1995) (Roses).
    The petitioner argues that, in Roses, the Department erroneously 
distinguished between commissions paid to related and unrelated 
parties, while the statute, which makes no such distinction, simply 
requires that commissions be deducted from ESP. The petitioner states 
that the Department's treatment of related party commissions in Roses 
is irrational, and it is inconsistent with Timken Co. v. United States, 
630 F. Supp. 1327, 1341 (CIT 1986) (Timken). The petitioner asserts 
that, in Timken, the Court supported the Department's rationale for not 
deducting related party profits because they were not commissions, 
while, in Roses, the Department refused to deduct commissions because 
they are profits. The petitioner points out that, in the 1989-1990 
administrative review of Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, the 
Department deducted related party commissions found to be at arm's 
length (57 FR 7732 (March 4, 1992)).
    Finally, the petitioner states that, even assuming that commissions 
need not always be deducted under section 772(e)(1) of the Act, the 
Department must deduct from ESP all direct selling expenses incurred at 
arm's length as circumstance-of-sale adjustments.

The Department's Position

    We disagree with the petitioner. Since the Department published its 
final results in the 1989-1990 administrative review of this order, we 
have established the practice of collapsing exporters and their related 
consignment agents in ESP situations. 57 FR at 7732. The petitioner's 
arguments do not persuade us to deviate from this practice. As fully 
explained in Roses, the Department considers commissions paid to 
related parties to be intracompany transfers of funds, which are not 
deductible from ESP. See also Furfuryl Alcohol From South Africa; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 60 FR 22551 (May 8, 
1995). Further, we do not consider such a transfer of funds to be a 
direct selling expense. Instead of making a deduction for commissions, 
the Department deducts the amount of the related importer's U.S. direct 
and indirect selling expenses pursuant to section 772(e)(2) of the Act. 
This methodology avoids double-counting the direct and indirect selling 
expense component of the related party commission, and avoids deducting 
any of the related importer's profit, as the Court affirmed in Timken 
Co. v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 1327, 1341 (CIT 1986) (Timken).

Comment 3

    The petitioner claims that the Department should confirm that the 
respondents' reported credit costs account for the time between receipt 
of payment and deposit into the respondents' bank accounts, as the 
Department did in the 1989-1990 administrative review.

The Department's Position

    We disagree with the petitioner. For the purposes of calculating 
imputed credit costs, it is our practice to calculate the number of 
credit days based on the number of days between the date of shipment 
and the date of payment. If actual payment dates are not readily 
accessible, we normally allow respondents to base the number of credit 
days on the average age of accounts receivables. See, e.g., Color 
Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 12701, 12708 (Comment 
28)(March 27, 1991).
    The Department calculated respondents' credit expenses for the

[[Page 40606]]

1989-1990 review period based on observations made during verification 
of that review. However, the Department more recently verified the 
1992-1993 review which immediately precedes this review. Based on the 
findings of this more recent verification, the Department determined 
that respondents' use of the average age of accounts receivables to 
calculate credit expenses is reasonable (Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(Comment 2) (February 22, 1996)). Although no verification was 
conducted for this review period, we have determined, consistent with 
the final results of the 1992-1993 review, to rely on respondents' use 
of their average age of accounts receivables to calculate credit 
expenses. We therefore have accepted respondents' reported credit 
expenses for these final results.

Comment 4

    The petitioner contends that since Lizebeth (Aguaje's subsidiary) 
does not track sales of the subject merchandise by country of origin, 
Lizebeth is indiscriminately allocating a portion of its box and 
freight revenue to Aguaje's sales. The petitioner also contends that, 
absent evidence that box and freight revenue has been remitted to 
Aguaje, the Department should reduce Aguaje's U.S. price accordingly.

The Department's Position

    We disagree with petitioner and accept Aguaje's addition of freight 
and box revenue to U.S. price. As Aguaje and Lizebeth are related 
parties, it is unnecessary to trace the disposition of the freight and 
box revenue, because such a remission merely represents a transfer of 
intercorporate funds. Since Lizebeth's accounting system does not track 
particular sales of the subject merchandise by country of origin, we 
accept Aguaje's methodology of allocating its box and freight revenue 
based on the ratio of Lizebeth's acquisition cost of Aguaje flowers 
sold to the total acquisition cost of all flowers sold.
    The Department maintains that box and freight revenue earned by a 
related party represents additional revenue. Therefore, it is the 
Department's determination to add box charges and freight revenues 
earned by Lizebeth to U.S. price. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Ecuador, 52 FR 2128 (January 20, 1987).

Comment 5

    The petitioner contends that Aguaje incorrectly classified its U.S. 
repacking costs as an indirect selling expense. Although Aguaje claims 
that Lizebeth's accounting system does not permit a precise segregation 
of repacking expenses, the petitioner argues that packing expenses are 
not selling expenses and cannot be included in the ESP offset cap. 
Therefore, the petitioner requests that the Department reduce Aguaje's 
U.S. price for U.S. repacking expenses.

The Department's Position

    It is the Department's policy to deduct U.S. repacking expenses 
from the U.S. price. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 6980 (February 6, 
1995). However, given the fact that Aguaje's subsidiary does not 
maintain records which precisely quantify the cost incurred for U.S. 
packing, we determine that it is sufficient to deduct from U.S. price 
Aguaje's indirect selling expenses which included the cost of U.S. 
repacking.
    Aguaje's indirect selling expenses consist of numerous expense 
categories, a small increase or decrease in a particular category would 
not produce a noticeable effect in total indirect selling expenses for 
the POR. Therefore, we are making no deductions from the ESP offset cap 
for U.S. repacking costs.

Comment 6

    The petitioner states that the Department should describe the 
manner in which it confirmed that Visaflor and Daisy made no shipments 
of the subject merchandise during the review period.

The Department's Position

    To determine whether Visaflor and Daisy made shipments of the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the review period, the 
Department followed its standard practice of issuing a request to 
Customs field personnel to notify the Department whether any subject 
merchandise exported by Visaflor or Daisy entered the United States 
during the review period. A copy of this message is on file in Room 
B099 of the Commerce Department. We received no information from 
Customs that Visaflor and Daisy had shipments of the subject 
merchandise during the POR.

Comment 7

    The petitioner agrees with the Department's decision to assign non-
responding companies a margin based on BIA; however, the petitioner 
states that the Department should not have assigned these companies the 
second-highest rate found for any respondent. By doing so, the 
petitioner argues, the Department unnecessarily and unfairly departed 
from its practice of assigning non-responding companies the highest 
available margin.
    The petitioner states that, although the Department did not use the 
highest rate as BIA in prior reviews, the respondents in those reviews 
had, at least, submitted partial or complete questionnaire responses. 
The petitioner argues that the Department has no evidence that the 
highest margin is unrepresentative, since the parties failed to respond 
to the questionnaire. Furthermore, the petitioner states, the 
respondents are presumed to be aware of the highest possible margin 
when they decided not to respond to the antidumping questionnaire, 
citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990).

The Department's Position

    We disagree with the petitioner. Prior to 1993 and the CIT's 
decisions in The Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 
(CIT 1993), and Federal Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. 
United States, 839 F.Supp. 864 (CIT 1993), the Department determined an 
``all others'' or ``new shippers'' rate during the course of each 
administrative review. In the 1989-1990 review of this order, the 
Department did not include Florex's rate of 264.43 percent in its 
determination of the updated ``all others'' rate. The CIT supported the 
Department's position, stating that, ``Florex's accumulated interest 
expenses from a separate line of business that never began operations 
skewed its cost of production figures and should not have been included 
in the review analysis.'' The Floral Trade Council v. the United 
States, 799 F. Supp. 116 (CIT 1992).
    The Court recognized that Florex's rate was unrepresentative of the 
other companies in that review, and by extension, of the entire flower 
industry because: (1) it was an out of proportion rate explained by 
factors unassociated with the overall industry, and (2) Florex 
represented only a small fraction of the industry. The Court concluded 
that ``ITA did not err in finding it would be punitive to maintain 
Florex's rate as the ``all other'' rate. Id. at 119. Although we 
received no information from the non-responding companies, we maintain 
that the Florex rate is unrepresentative of the Mexican fresh cut 
flower industry, and unsuitable to be applied to the non-responding 
companies as BIA. Therefore, we assigned Tzitzic Tareta, Rancho Mision 
el Descanso, Rancho Alisitos, Las Flores de Mexico, and Mexipel, S.A. 
de CV a BIA rate of 39.95 percent, which is the highest

[[Page 40607]]

representative rate of the Mexican fresh cut flower industry.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (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 
Mexipel, S.A. de CV..........................................     39.95 
All others...................................................    18.20  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant    
  segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.            

    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 these 
final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the 
cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies shall be the above rates; 
(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 less-than-fair-
value (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 shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d) or 355.34(d). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    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: July 29, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-19862 Filed 8-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P