[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 161 (Monday, August 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42833-42871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-301-602]


Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On June 8, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of three concurrent administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from 
Colombia. These reviews cover a total of 348 producers and/or exporters 
of fresh cut flowers to the United States for at least one of the 
following periods: March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992; March 1, 
1992 through February 28, 1993; and March 1, 1993 through February 28, 
1994.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and 
the correction of certain clerical errors, we have made certain changes 
for the final results. The review indicates the existence of dumping 
margins for certain firms during the review periods.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, J. David Dirstine, or 
Richard Rimlinger, 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) 482-4733.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: The Department is conducting these 
administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 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 
references to the provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 5, 1992, March 12, 1993, and March 4, 1994, the Department 
published notices in the Federal Register of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' (57 FR 7910, 58 FR 13583, and 59 FR 10368, 
respectively) of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut 
flowers from Colombia. On May 21, 1992, May 28, 1993, and May 2, 1994, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c)(1994), we initiated administrative 
reviews of this order for more than 500 Colombian firms covering the 
periods March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 (the 5th review), March 
1, 1992 through February 28, 1993 (the 6th review), and March 1, 1993 
through February 28, 1994 (the 7th review), respectively (see 57 FR 
21643, 58 FR 31010, and 59 FR 22579, respectively).
    On June 8, 1995, we published a notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order (In Part) 
(Preliminary Results), wherein we invited interested parties to 
comment. See 60 FR 30270 (June 8, 1995). At the request of interested 
parties, we held a public hearing on September 8, 1995.
    Although the Preliminary Results indicated that Cultivos Miramonte, 
Flores Aurora, the Funza Group, and Industrial Agricola were being 
considered for revocation, our recalculations for these final results 
indicate that these firms no longer meet our requirements of not 
selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value for a period of 
at least three years and that it is not likely that they will sell the 
subject merchandise at less than fair value in the future. See 19 CFR 
353.25(a)(2). Therefore, we are no longer considering these firms for 
revocation.
    A number of respondents have asked that we correct clerical errors 
contained in their responses. We have had a longstanding practice of 
correcting a respondent's clerical errors after the preliminary results 
only if we can assess

[[Page 42834]]

from information already on the record that an error has been made, 
that the error is obvious from the record, and that the correction is 
accurate. See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 57 FR 8295, 8297 (March 9, 1992). In light of a 
recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC), we have reevaluated our policy for correcting clerical 
errors of respondents. See NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 
94-1186 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (NTN).
    In NTN, the CAFC ruled that the Department had abused its 
discretion by refusing to correct certain clerical errors, which the 
respondent brought to the Department's attention after the preliminary 
results of review. Specifically, the CAFC found that the application of 
our test for determining whether to correct clerical errors in NTN was 
unreasonable for the following reasons: (1) The requirement that the 
record disclose the error essentially precludes corrections of clerical 
errors made by a respondent; (2) draconian penalties are inappropriate 
for clerical errors because clerical errors are by their nature not 
errors in judgment but merely inadvertencies; (3) in NTN's case, a 
straightforward mathematical adjustment was all that was required, so 
correction of NTN's errors would neither have required beginning anew 
nor have delayed issuance of the final results of review.
    As a result of the NTN decision, we are modifying our policy 
regarding the correction of alleged clerical errors. We will accept 
corrections of clerical errors under the following conditions: (1) The 
error in question must be demonstrated to be a clerical error, not a 
methodological error, an error in judgment, or a substantive error; (2) 
the Department must be satisfied that the corrective documentation 
provided in support of the clerical error allegation is reliable; (3) 
the respondent must have availed itself of the earliest reasonable 
opportunity to correct the error; (4) the clerical error allegation, 
and any corrective documentation, must be submitted to the Department 
no later than the due date for the respondent's administrative case 
brief; (5) the clerical error must not entail a substantial revision of 
the response; and (6) the respondent's corrective documentation must 
not contradict information previously determined to be accurate at 
verification. In the Analysis of Comments Received section of this 
notice, we have evaluated company-specific situations using the above 
criteria.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of certain fresh cut 
flowers from Colombia (standard carnations, miniature (spray) 
carnations, standard chrysanthemums and pompon chrysanthemums). These 
products are currently classifiable under item numbers 0603.10.30.00, 
0603.10.70.10, 0603.10.70.20, and 0603.10.70.30 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description of the scope 
of this order remains dispositive.
    Although we initiated reviews on more than 500 firms, we have only 
reviewed a total of 348 firms for at least one of the three review 
periods. We initiated reviews for a large number of firms which could 
not be located in spite of our requests for assistance from diverse 
sources such as the Floral Trade Council (the FTC), Asocolflores, the 
American Embassy in Bogota, and the U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, we 
were unable to conduct administrative reviews for these firms. We shall 
assess duties for those unlocatable firms that have not previously been 
reviewed at the ``all others'' rate of 3.10 percent. Assessment of 
duties, as well as cash deposits, on entries from firms which we were 
not able to locate but that had been previously reviewed will be 
collected at the most recent cash deposit rate applicable to them. The 
unlocatable firms are:

Achalay
Agricola Altiplano
Agricola de Occidente
Agricola del Monte
Agricola Megaflor Ltda.
Agrocaribu Ltd.
Agro de Narino
Agroindustrial Madonna, S.A.
Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.
Agropecuaria la Marcela
Agropecuaria Mauricio
Agrocosas
Agrotabio Kent
Aguacarga
Alcala
Alstroflores Ltda.
Amoret
Andalucia
Ancas Ltda.
A.Q.
Arboles Azules Ltda.
Carcol Ltda.
Classic
Clavelez
Coexflor
Color Explosion
Consorcio Agroindustrial Columbiano S.A. ``CAICO''
Cota
Crest D'or
Crop S.A.
Cultivos Guameru
Cypress Valley
Degaflor
Del Monte
Del Tropico Ltda.
Disagro Ltda.
El Dorado
Elite Flowers
El Milaro
El Tambo
El Timbul Ltda.
Euroflora
Exoticas
Exotic Flowers
Exotico
Exportadora
F. Salazar
Ferson Trading
Flamingo Flowers
Flor y Color
Flores Abaco, S.A.
Flores Agromonte
Flores Ainsus
Flores Alcala Ltda.
Flores Calichana
Flores Cerezangos
Flores Corola
Flores de Guasca
Flores de Iztari
Flores de Memecon/Corinto
Flores de la Cuesta
Flores de la Hacienda
Flores de la Maria
Flores del Cielo Ltda.
Flores del Cortijo
Flores del Tambo
Flores el Talle Ltda.
Flores Flamingo Ltda.
Flores Fusu
Flores Gloria
Flores la Cabanuela
Flores la Pampa
Flores la Union/Santana
Flores Montecarlo
Flores Palimana
Flores Saint Valentine
Flores San Andres
Flores Santana
Flores Sausalito
Flores Sindamanoi
Flores Suasuque
Flores Tenerife Ltda.
Flores Urimaco
Flores Violette
Florexpo
Floricola
Florisol
Florpacifico
Flower Factory
Flowers of the World/Rosa
Four Seasons
Fracolsa
Fresh Flowers
Garden and Flowers, Ltda.
German Ocampo
Granja
Gypso Flowers
Hacienda La Embarrada
Hacienda Matute
Hana/Hisa Group
    Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.
    Flores Tokai Hisa
Hernando Monroy
Hill Crest Gardens
Horticultura de la Sasan

[[Page 42835]]

Horticultura Montecarlo
Illusion Flowers
Indigo S.A.
Industria Santa Clara
Industrial Terwengel, Ltda.
Innovacion Andina, S.A.
Inversiones Bucarelia
Inversiones Maya, Ltda.
Inversiones Playa
Inversiones & Producciones Tecnicas
Inversiones Silma
Inversiones Sima
Jardin de Carolina
Jardines Choconta
Jardines Darpu
Jardines de Timana
Jardines Natalia Ltda.
Jardines Tocarema
J.M. Torres
Karla Flowers
Kingdom S.A.
La Colina
La Embairada
La Flores Ltda.
La Floresta
Laura Flowers
L.H.
Loma Linda
Loreana Flowers
M. Alejandra
Mauricio Uribe
Merastec
Morcoto
My Flowers Ltda.
Nasino
Olga Rincon
Otono
Pinar Guameru
Piracania
Prismaflor
Reme Salamanca
Rosa Bella
Rosales de Suba Ltda.
Rosas y Jardines
Rose
San Ernesto
San Valentine
Sarena
Select Pro
Shila
Solor Flores Ltda.
Starlight
Sunbelt Florals
Susca
The Rose
Tomino
Tropical Garden
Tropiflor
Villa Diana
Zipa Flowers

Best Information Available

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that whenever a party refuses or 
is unable to produce information requested in a timely manner and in 
the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation, 
the Department shall use best information otherwise available (BIA). In 
deciding what to use as BIA, 19 CFR 353.37(b) provides that the 
Department may take into account whether a party refused to provide 
requested information. Thus, the Department determines on a case-by-
case basis what is BIA.
    For these final results of reviews, in cases where we have 
determined to use total BIA, we applied two tiers of BIA depending on 
whether the companies attempted to or refused to cooperate in these 
reviews. When a company refused to provide the information requested in 
the form required, or otherwise significantly impeded the Department's 
review, the Department assigned to that company first-tier BIA, which 
is the higher of (1) the highest rate found for any firm for the same 
class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin in the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or any prior administrative 
review; or (2) the highest calculated rate found in the specific period 
of review for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the 
same country of origin. When a company has substantially cooperated 
with the Department's request for information but failed to provide the 
information required in a timely manner or in the form required, the 
Department assigned to that company second-tier BIA, which is the 
higher of either: (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 been investigated or reviewed, the all others rate from the LTFV 
investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate in the specific 
review for the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same 
country of origin. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Orders, 60 FR 10900, 10907 (Feb. 28, 1995); see also Allied-Signal 
Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
    Because a number of firms failed to respond to our requests for 
information, we have used the highest rate ever found in any segment of 
this proceeding to establish their margins. This rate, which was 
calculated for the Bojaca Group in the 5th administrative review, is 
76.60 percent for all three administrative reviews. The firms to which 
we have applied first-tier BIA rates and the review periods for which 
these firms are receiving a BIA rate (as indicated in parentheses) are 
as follows:

Agricola Jicabal (5,6,7)
Agricola Malqui (5,6,7)
Agricola Monteflor Ltda. (7)
Agrobloom Ltda. (7)
Agrokoralia (5,6,7)
Bali Flowers (7)
Bloomshare Ltda. (7)
Bogota Flowers (5,6,7)
Ciba Geigy (5,6,7)
Claveles Tropicales de Colombia (7)
Colony International Farm (5,6,7)
Conflores Ltda. (5,6,7)
Cultivos el Lago (5,6,7)
Flora Bellisima (5,6,7)
Flores Alfaya (5,6,7)
Flores Arco Iris (5,6,7)
Flores Balu (7)
Flores Catalina (7)
Flores de Fragua (7)
Flores de la Pradera Ltda. (5,6,7)
Flores del Pradro (7)
Flores el Majui (7)
Flores Guaicata Ltda. (5,6,7)
Flores Magara (7)
Flores Naturales (7)
Flores Petaluma Ltda.(5,6,7)
Flores Rio Grande (7)
Flores Santa Lucia (5,6,7)
Flores Tejas Verdes (5,6,7)
Fribir Ltda. (7)
Groex S.A. (5,6)
Hacienda Susata (7)
Inpar (5,6,7)
Interflora Ltda. (5,6,7)
Inter Flores (7)
Internacional Flowers (7)
Invernavas (5,6,7)
Inversiones del Alto (7)
Inversiones Nativa Ltda. (5,6,7)
Jardin (5,6,7)
Jardines del Muna (5,6,7)
La Florida (5,6,7)
Naranjo Exportaciones e Importaciones (7)
Plantas Ornamentales de Colombia S.A. (7)
Rosas y Flores (5,6,7)
Rosicler Ltda. (5,6,7)
Sabana Flowers (5,6,7)
Sunset Farms (5,6,7)
Tempest Flowers (5,6,7)

    At the time of our preliminary results of review, we determined 
that MG Consultores, Flores Canelon, Flores la Valvanera, Flores del 
Hato, Agroindustrial del Riofrio, Jardines de Chia, Queen's Flowers de 
Colombia, and Jardines Fredonia were sufficiently related to each other 
to warrant collapsing their sales and production information into the 
Queen's Flowers Group. See Preliminary Results at 30271. Based on 
information which we requested and received after the preliminary 
results, we have determined that twelve other firms (Flores Jayvana, 
Flores el Cacique, Flores Calima, Flores la Mana, Flores el Cipres, 
Flores el Roble, Flores del Bojaca, Flores el Tandil, Flores el Ajibe, 
Flores Atlas, Floranova, and Cultivos Generales) are also related to 
the members of the Queen's Flowers Group within the meaning of section 
771(13) of the Act. We determine that the type and degree of 
relationship is so significant that there is the strong possibility of 
price manipulation among all 20 of these companies. See our response to 
Comment 26, below. Therefore, we are

[[Page 42836]]

assigning a single rate for all 20 companies for these final results. 
However, not all of the companies of this group responded to our 
questionnaire. Further, there exist serious deficiencies in the 
responses submitted by the group. See Department's Position regarding 
Comment 27, below. Therefore, we determine that the members of the 
Queen's Flowers Group have significantly impeded our reviews and have 
used as uncooperative, or first-tier, BIA the highest rate for any 
company for this same class or kind of merchandise from this or any 
prior segment of the proceeding.
    One firm, Agricola Usatama, responded to our original 
questionnaire, but failed to respond to our requests for supplemental 
information. We determine that this company has not cooperated with our 
requests for information. Therefore, we have applied a first-tier BIA 
rate to this firm for the seventh review.
    Although Santa Helena submitted a response to our supplemental 
questionnaire, this firm failed to provide information allowing us to 
correct serious deficiencies in its cost responses. Therefore, we were 
unable to use its cost data for comparison purposes. However, because 
this firm responded to all sections of our questionnaire and 
substantially cooperated with our request for information, we have 
applied a cooperative, or second-tier, BIA rate to sales made by this 
company.
    We conducted verification of responses submitted by the Agrodex 
Group, Cultivos Miramonte, Floralex, Flores Aurora, Flores Depina, the 
Funza Group, Flores de la Vereda, Flores Juanambu, the Florex Group, 
the Guacatay Group, the HOSA Group, Industrial Agricola, the Santana 
Group, Senda Brava, and the Tinzuque Group. We encountered serious 
difficulties in attempting to verify the responses submitted by Flores 
de la Vereda and Floralex. With respect to Flores de la Vereda, we 
could not successfully verify completeness and accuracy of the sales 
data. With respect to Floralex, we were unable to verify the accuracy 
of the constructed value information submitted by this firm. Because 
Flores de la Vereda and Floralex submitted responses and have otherwise 
participated in all segments of the proceeding, we have determined that 
they both have substantially cooperated with our requests for 
information and applied a second-tier BIA rate to these firms for all 
three reviews.
    Also, we are applying a second-tier BIA rate to sales made by 
Agricola de los Alisos, Colflores, Flores Estrella, Flores Mountgar, 
and Flor Colombia S.A., because these companies were unable to respond 
to our questionnaire. In Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Notice of 
Revocation of Order (in Part), 59 FR 15159, 15173 (March 31, 1994) 
(Fourth Review), we stated:

    ``In choosing an appropriate BIA * * * we focused on the 
following factors and how they applied to the * * * companies at the 
time they received our questionnaires (in this case, March 4, 1992): 
the extent to which the companies continued to operate, including 
current production and export levels, the number of persons employed 
by the firms, the disposition of the companies' assets, the 
relationship of the companies to other exporters continuing in 
business, the current legal status of the bankruptcy, liquidation, 
or reorganization proceedings, and the potential for reorganization 
(including the likelihood that the companies would resume production 
and exports).''

    The record shows that Agricola de los Alisos, Colflores, Flores 
Estrella, Flores Mountgar, and Flor Colombia S.A. are no longer in 
business. In accordance with the standards enunciated above, we have 
determined that these companies were unable to respond to our 
questionnaire and have assigned a second-tier BIA rate to these firms.
    In certain situations, we found it necessary to use partial BIA for 
a number of firms to correct more limited response deficiencies. In a 
supplemental questionnaire, Flores de Aposentos reported aggregate 
carnation sales which the firm knew were destined to be sold to the 
United States through resellers. Because the company did not separately 
identify these sales in its questionnaire response as required by the 
questionnaire, thereby prohibiting us from calculating accurate 
margins, as BIA we applied the higher of the highest rate ever 
applicable to the company or the highest calculated rate in the same 
review to the particular sales involved.
    In the case of Las Amalias, we found that, for certain U.S. sales 
transactions in the 5th period of review (POR), the firm had reported 
sales prices to a related importer instead of sales prices to the first 
unrelated U.S. customer as required by our questionnaire. This 
prohibits us from calculating margins in accordance with the Act, so, 
as BIA, we have applied the higher of the highest rate ever applicable 
to Las Amalias or the highest calculated rate in the same review to 
these particular transactions.

United States Price

    Pursuant to section 777A of the Act, we determined that it was 
appropriate to average U.S. prices on a monthly basis in order: (1) to 
use actual price information that is often available only on a monthly 
basis, (2) to account for large sales volumes, and (3) to account for 
perishable product pricing practices. See, e.g., Fourth Review at 
15160.
    In calculating the U.S. price (USP), we used purchase price when 
sales were made to unrelated purchasers in the United States prior to 
the date of importation, or exporter's sales price (ESP) when sales 
were made to unrelated purchasers in the United States after the date 
of importation, both pursuant to section 772 of the Act.
    We calculated purchase prices based on the packed price to the 
first unrelated purchaser in the United States. The terms of purchase 
price sales were either f.o.b. Bogota or c.i.f. Miami. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight, 
brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties, and return credits.
    We calculated ESP for sales made on consignment or through a 
related affiliate based on the packed price to the first unrelated 
customer in the United States. We made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, air freight, box 
charges, credit expenses, returned merchandise credits, royalties, U.S. 
duty, and either commissions paid to unrelated U.S. consignees or U.S. 
selling expenses of related U.S. consignees.

Foreign Market Value

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act requires the Department to compare 
sales in the United States with viable home market sales of such or 
similar merchandise sold in the home market, or a third-country market, 
in the ordinary course of trade. Although some companies reported 
either viable home or third-country markets for sales of particular 
flower types, consistent with our discussion in the Fourth Review (at 
15160-61), we have concluded that home market and third-country sales 
are not an appropriate basis for FMV. See our response to Comment 7, 
below.
    Accordingly, in calculating FMV, we used constructed value as 
defined in section 773(e) of the Act for all companies. The constructed 
value represents the average per-flower cost for each type of flower 
during each review period, based on the costs incurred to produce that 
type of flower during each review period.
    The Department used the materials, production, and general expenses 
reported by respondents. Because we have determined that both the home 
market and third countries are either not viable or do not provide an 
appropriate basis for FMV for all companies, we

[[Page 42837]]

used the U.S. market as a surrogate for determining the amount of 
general expenses to add to constructed value. This figure included U.S. 
selling expenses which were incurred by affiliated U.S. firms (see our 
response to comment 8, below). The per-unit average constructed value 
was based on the quantity of export quality flowers sold to the United 
States. We have considered non-export quality flowers (also called 
culls) produced in conjunction with export quality flowers to be 
similar to scrap in that the culls may or may not have recoverable 
value. Therefore, we offset revenue from the sales of culls against the 
cost of producing the export quality flowers. See our response to 
Comment 24, below.
    For firms whose actual general expenses exceeded the statutory 
minimum of 10 percent of the cost of materials and fabrication, we used 
the actual general expenses to calculate constructed value pursuant to 
section 773(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. For firms whose actual general 
expenses were less than the statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost 
of materials and fabrication, we used the statutory minimum of 10 
percent. Because imputed credit was included in constructed value, we 
reduced the actual interest expense reported in the companies' 
financial statements to prevent double-counting.
    Because all respondents reported actual profit less than eight 
percent of the sum of the cost of production and actual expenses, the 
Department used the eight-percent statutory minimum for profit pursuant 
to section 773(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. We added U.S. packing to 
constructed value. Adjustments to constructed value were made for 
credit and indirect selling expenses.
    According to the 1993 edition of Doing Business in Colombia, 
published by Price Waterhouse, there has been a change in the Colombian 
generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP), effective January 1, 
1992. This change required firms to revalue certain financial statement 
accounts in order to reflect the effects of inflation experienced 
during each financial reporting period. As part of this revaluation, 
firms must restate their fixed asset accounts and their corresponding 
depreciation expense. We asked respondents to provide additional data 
to allow us to adjust their data to reflect this change in Colombian 
GAAP for our final results. Most of the companies provided this data. 
For companies that failed to provide this data, or that provided 
inadequate data, we made the adjustment to their response based on 
monthly inflation figures published by the Colombian government. See 
Memorandum from Michael Martin and William Jones to Richard Rimlinger 
(February 20, 1996).
    Many of the responding companies reported an ``income'' offset that 
they claimed was created along with this revaluation. We disallowed 
this offset as it is a change in the firm's equity and not income that 
is actually realized. For further discussion of this matter, see our 
response to Comment 11, below. For companies that failed to provide 
this data, or that provided inadequate data, we made the adjustment to 
their response based on monthly inflation figures published by the 
Colombian government. See Memorandum from Michael Martin and William 
Jones to Richard Rimlinger (February 20, 1996).

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results 
and intent to revoke the order in part. We received case and rebuttal 
briefs from the FTC, petitioner in this proceeding, the Asociacion 
Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores (Asocolflores), an association of 
Colombian flower producers representing many of the respondents in this 
case, and various exporters and importers of fresh cut flowers from 
Colombia. On September 8, 1995, we held a public hearing.

General Issues Raised by the Floral Trade Council

    Comment 1: The FTC argues that the Department should not revoke the 
order with respect to companies that are or may be reselling flowers 
grown by other producers. The FTC asserts that, although it argued in 
the 1990-91 review (fourth review) that revocation for the Flores 
Colombianas Group (FCG) was inappropriate because of the possibility of 
other growers routing their flowers through FCG, the Department 
disagreed and revoked FCG (Fourth Review). The FTC reiterates the 
Department's rationale in the Fourth Review that, because the group's 
purchases from other producers were an insignificant percentage of its 
total U.S. sales, FCG had consistently stated that its suppliers had no 
foreknowledge that the purchased flowers were destined for any specific 
export market, and the Department had no evidence that the company 
purchased flowers at below its suppliers' cost of production, 
revocation was appropriate. The FTC reminds the Department that the 
agency informed the public that, if it received information that FCG is 
serving as a conduit for other Colombian flower growers, it would take 
appropriate action, which could include reinstatement in the order and 
referral to the U.S. Customs fraud division.
    The FTC contends that the Department's decision to revoke FCG in 
the Fourth Review established additional criteria for revocation and 
that the Department should apply the same criteria in the current 
reviews before making a decision to revoke any of the companies. The 
FTC argues that the Department's preliminary determination to revoke 
these companies was faulty because ``(1) there is no evidence that 
purchases from other producers are insignificant, and (2) there is no 
basis on which to conclude that suppliers neither knew or should have 
known the destination of their sales'' (Floral Trade Council's Public 
Case Brief, page 3, August 11, 1995). The FTC contends that Colombian 
growers often purchase flowers from other producers for export to the 
United States, and that, because the merchandise is not marked, there 
continues to be a danger that companies with dumping margins will route 
their flowers through companies with no margins. The FTC asks that the 
Department reconsider its reliance on the ``knowledge'' factor in 
determining whether revocation candidates are likely to become conduits 
for growers subject to the order. The FTC contends that the knowledge 
test is impractical and subject to manipulation, and suggests that, as 
a precondition for revocation, Colombian growers requesting revocation 
should certify that they will not ship flowers grown by other Colombian 
growers, on penalty of reinstatement in the order.
    Asocolflores argues that there is no factual basis for the FTC to 
conclude that companies eligible for revocation would serve as conduits 
for other producers. Asocolflores requests that the Department take the 
same position as it did in the Fourth Review, and analyze the facts on 
record in determining whether there is any basis for the FTC's 
speculation. Asocolflores points out that some of the companies 
eligible for revocation did not even purchase flowers from other 
producers. For those companies that did purchase flowers from other 
producers, Asocolflores contends that the purchases were occasional and 
that the Department previously has recognized that such limited sales 
and purchases do not constitute evasion of the order. Finally, 
Asocolflores contends that the FTC has provided no valid basis for the 
Department to reconsider its longstanding practice requiring the 
producer to know or have reason to know that its sales are destined for 
the

[[Page 42838]]

United States before they are reported as U.S. sales.
    Department's Position: Section 353.25(a)(2) of our regulations 
states that we may revoke an order in part if we conclude that (1) a 
producer or reseller has not sold subject merchandise at less than fair 
value for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) it is not 
likely that the producer or reseller will sell the subject merchandise 
at less than fair value in the future; and (3) the producer or reseller 
agrees, in writing, to their immediate reinstatement in the order if we 
conclude, under 19 CFR 353.22(f), that they have sold the subject 
merchandise below FMV.
    For these final results, after recalculating the margins for 
Cultivos Miramonte, Flores Aurora, the Funza Group, and Industrial 
Agricola, we determine that these firms are no longer eligible for 
revocation. In the cases of Cultivos Miramonte, Flores Aurora, and 
Industrial Agricola, there has not been a period of at least three 
consecutive years without sales at less than fair value. In the case of 
the Funza Group, there was a period of three consecutive years (1991-
93) in which the firm did not sell subject merchandise at less than 
fair value (i.e., the fourth, fifth, and sixth periods of review). 
However, the Group did have sales at less than fair value in the last 
period reviewed (i.e., the seventh period of review) and, therefore, 
the Group has not demonstrated that it is not likely to sell subject 
merchandise at less than fair value in the future. Therefore, we are 
not revoking the order with respect to any firms.
    Comment 2: The FTC argues that the Department overstated ESP prices 
by not deducting commissions paid to related U.S. consignees. The FTC 
contends that where commissions paid to related U.S. consignees reflect 
arm's-length commissions and are directly related to sales, the 
Department should deduct the commissions as direct selling expenses. In 
support of deducting these commissions, the FTC argues the following: 
(1) the language of section 772(e)(1) of the Act requires the 
Department to deduct both U.S. commissions and indirect selling 
expenses from ESP, whether or not the U.S. consignee is related to the 
exporter; (2) the rationale of Timken Co. v. United States, 630 F. 
Supp. 1327 (CIT 1986) (Timken), requires the Department to deduct 
related-party commissions; and (3) even under the assumption that 
commissions need not always be deducted under section 772(e)(1), 
commissions that are arm's length in nature and directly related to the 
sales must be deducted from ESP as circumstance-of-sale adjustments.
    In its rebuttal brief, Asocolflores states that the FTC's arguments 
ignore the Department's practice in this case and in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from 
Colombia, 60 FR 6980 (February 6, 1995) (Roses), of deducting actual 
expenses rather than intracompany transfers. Asocolflores contends that 
the court cases and statutory provisions cited by the FTC in support of 
deducting commissions paid to related parties are irrelevant in this 
case because the Department collapsed the consignee and supplier and 
treated the two parties as a single entity for purposes of determining 
ESP. Asocolflores states that when a supplier pays a commission to a 
consignee which the Department has collapsed with the supplier, the 
payment is merely an intracompany transfer of funds and not an actual 
expense. Asocolflores contends that, by deducting only the selling and 
operating expenses incurred by the U.S. consignee, USP is calculated on 
the basis of the actual sales prices received from unrelated parties 
and the actual selling expenses incurred by all related entities. 
Asocolflores argues that, because the supplier pays the commission to 
the importer to cover the importer's indirect selling expenses and to 
provide a profit, deducting the related importer's commission from USP 
(instead of deducting the importer's selling expenses) would have the 
effect of deducting the importer's profit from ESP. Asocolflores 
contends that this would be unlawful according to the Timken decision, 
where the Court of International Trade (CIT) observed that the statute 
does not call for the deduction of profits in ESP calculations. 
Asocolflores alleges that the FTC has attempted to confuse the issue by 
requesting that commissions be deducted as a direct selling expense 
when found to be at arm's length. Further, Asocolflores contends that 
whether a commission is at arm's length has nothing to do with the 
commission being an actual expense incurred by the exporter.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the FTC. For the final 
results, we have continued to treat commissions paid to related 
consignees as intracompany transfers.
    Section 772(c) of the Act defines ESP as the ``the price at which 
the merchandise is sold or agreed to be sold in the United States, 
before or after the time of importation, by or for the account of the 
exporter * * *.'' (emphasis added). The statute defines ``exporter'' to 
include the producer and the related U.S. consignee (section 771(13) of 
the Act). We make appropriate deductions to the price at which the 
merchandise is sold in the United States to the first unrelated party 
to determine ``the net amount returned to the exporter.'' S. Rep. No. 
16, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. at 12 (1921). Thus, we deduct the U.S. 
indirect selling expenses incurred by the related consignee as these 
are payments to unrelated third parties that affect the exporter's net 
return. However, payments from a producer to its related U.S. consignee 
at issue are intracompany transfers that compensate the related 
consignee for selling expenses incurred by the consignee in the United 
States. Because these selling expenses are already deducted under our 
current methodology, the deduction of the intracompany ``commission'' 
would result in double-counting. See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and 
Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 44009, 44010 (Aug. 24, 
1995). Thus, we make no deductions for these payments pursuant to 
section 772(e)(1).
    In addition, we disagree with the FTC that the rationale of Timken 
requires us to deduct related-party commissions. The Timken court held 
that the statutory deduction for commissions did not require us to also 
deduct the profit earned by a U.S. subsidiary. See Timken v. United 
States, 630 F. Supp. 1327, 1342 (CIT 1986). The Timken court did not 
state that we were required to deduct related-party commissions. 
Further, as stated in Roses, the difference between a ``commission'' 
paid to a related U.S. consignee and the related consignee's selling 
and operating expenses is equal to the related U.S. consignee's profit. 
As there is no statutory provision providing for the deduction of 
profits in ESP situations, we have made no deductions for these 
amounts. See Roses at 6993.
    Finally, we disagree with the FTC that these intracompany transfers 
should be deducted as a circumstance-of-sale adjustment. As noted 
above, we already deduct that portion of the transfer price that 
represents selling expenses paid by the related U.S. consignee. The 
remaining portion--profit--does not qualify as a circumstance-of-sale 
adjustment.
    Comment 3: The FTC asserts that failing verification is a basis for 
first-tier BIA and argues that the Department was too lenient by 
applying second-tier BIA to firms that failed verification. The FTC 
points out that Flores de la Vereda presented a revised questionnaire

[[Page 42839]]

response during verification that contained substantial changes to the 
data it had submitted originally. The FTC also notes that the 
Department found various errors in its verifications of Flores de la 
Vereda and Floralex.
    Flores de la Vereda and Floralex, Colombian flower producers and 
respondents in this case, contend that, when determining which tier of 
BIA to apply, the Department's practice is to take into consideration 
whether a respondent willfully refuses to participate in an 
administrative review, or whether it attempts to cooperate but is 
unable to comply with every request during verification. They argue 
that discrepancies in the verification of Floralex do not suggest that 
the company tried to obstruct the verification or that it was 
uncooperative. These respondents also point out that cases to which the 
FTC refers do not support its assertion; therefore, they contend, the 
FTC's argument that Floralex should be assigned first-tier BIA is 
wrong.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The 
Department took into consideration all deficiencies found at 
verification for Flores de la Vereda and Floralex. However, the fact 
that the questionnaire response was revised for one company and various 
errors were found for both companies does not give sufficient reason, 
in this instance, to assign first-tier BIA. In determining what to 
apply as BIA, our regulations provide that we may take into account 
whether a party refuses to provide requested information or in some way 
impedes the proceedings. See 19 CFR 353.37(b). First-tier BIA is 
applied when a company refuses to provide information requested, or 
significantly impedes the Department's proceedings. See, e.g., 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, 60 FR 10900, 10907 (February 28, 1995). In past 
administrative reviews, it has been the Department's practice to apply 
second-tier BIA when a company has substantially cooperated with the 
Department's request for information. In this case, even though Flores 
de la Vereda and Floralex failed certain aspects of verification, the 
companies substantially cooperated with all of our requests for 
information. Therefore, we have applied second-tier BIA to these 
companies.
    Comment 4: The FTC argues that the Department should calculate and 
deduct inventory carrying cost (ICC) from ESP for those respondents 
that did not provide such a calculation in their responses. In support 
of this argument, the FTC refers to Roses, in which the Department 
calculated an estimated ICC for respondents selling through related 
parties who did not report ICC. Based on this precedent, the FTC 
contends that the Department must calculate ICC for fresh cut flowers 
because they have a longer life span than roses.
    Asocolflores states that the Department has never deducted ICC from 
ESP in this case, and contends that it would be inappropriate to do so 
now. Furthermore, Asocolflores contends that ICC ``generally'' is 
included in the reported imputed credit expenses because this amount is 
calculated from the date of shipment from Colombia to the date of 
receipt of payment. Asocolflores states that, to the extent ICC are not 
included in the imputed credit expenses, they are insignificant and 
would not affect margin calculations. Asocolflores also cites Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-107 at 16-17 (CIT June 
12, 1995), arguing that, because the Department did not request that 
companies provide the inventory carrying period, it cannot apply an 
adverse assumption to fill in the information needed to calculate this 
expense.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the FTC. For the final 
results, we have not calculated an ICC for ESP sales.
    The Act does not contain a specific provision for deducting ICC 
from USP. Rather, we deduct ICC pursuant to section 772(e)(2) of the 
statute, which requires us to deduct from ESP ``expenses generally 
incurred by or for the account of the exporter in the United States in 
selling identical or substantially identical merchandise.'' The CAFC 
recently upheld our decision to deduct ICC pursuant to this provision 
of the statute. See Torrington Co. v. United States, 44 F.3d 1572, 1580 
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
    Because ICC are not found in the books of the respondents, we must 
look at what the financing cost would have been. Our practice in 
calculating ICC for ESP sales is to calculate the cost in two segments: 
(1) for the period during which the merchandise is held by the foreign 
manufacturer; and (2) for the period during which the merchandise is in 
transit or held by the U.S. affiliate. If we were to calculate and 
deduct ICC on ESP sales in this case, the methodology would need to be 
slightly different because there are two types of ESP transactions.
    The first type of ESP transaction is where the foreign manufacturer 
sells the flowers through a related U.S. consignee. The second type is 
where the foreign manufacturer sells the flowers through an unrelated 
consignee. In the latter situation, we would not calculate and deduct 
ICC because: (1) Flowers are shipped immediately upon production; and 
(2) our imputed credit expense calculation accounts for financing costs 
associated with the period during which the merchandise is in transit 
and held by the unrelated U.S. consignee (i.e., imputed credit covers 
the financing costs from the time the merchandise is shipped to the 
United States until the producer receives payment for the merchandise). 
Where the foreign manufacturer sells the flowers through a related U.S. 
consignee, our imputed credit expense calculations do not cover the 
period during which the merchandise is in transit and held by the U.S. 
consignee. On these transactions our calculation of imputed credit 
covers the financing costs for the period between shipment from the 
U.S. consignee to the first unrelated party and receipt of payment. 
Thus, in order to capture all the financing costs on ESP transactions 
where the foreign manufacturer sells the flowers through a related U.S. 
consignee, it may be appropriate to calculate ICC for the period during 
which the flowers are in transit and held by the U.S. consignee.
    For purposes of calculating USP and FMV, section 777A of the Act 
allows the Department to disregard ``adjustments which are 
insignificant in relation to the price or value of the merchandise.'' 
For calculating FMV, our regulations define ``insignificant'' as having 
either an ad valorem effect of less than 0.33 percent of FMV for 
individual adjustments, or 1.0 percent of FMV for any group of 
adjustments. See 19 CFR 353.59(a) (1994). The regulations do not define 
``insignificant'' for adjustments involving USP. Regarding section 
777A, the CIT has held that ``the statute provides not only that 
Commerce is the appropriate authority to determine whether an 
adjustment is insignificant, but also that it is Commerce that has the 
discretion to determine whether or not to disregard an insignificant 
adjustment.'' SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 876 F. Supp. 275, 281 (CIT 
1995).
    For the preliminary results, we did not calculate an ICC for any 
respondent. Furthermore, we did not request the ICC information in our 
questionnaires. An estimate of respondents' inventory periods is 
available in the public report used in the Roses investigation. 
However, respondents claim that this public report overstates the 
inventory period for the subject merchandise in this case. Therefore, 
we could obtain accurate ICC information only by sending out 
supplemental

[[Page 42840]]

questionnaires to each individual company.
    Based on the respondents' claim that any ICC adjustment would be 
insignificant, we ran tests to determine the relative importance of the 
ICC adjustment in this case. See Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga to Joe 
A. Spetrini (November 8, 1995). For the Agrodex Group and the Claveles 
Colombianos Group, we calculated a per-unit ICC, based on the number of 
days in inventory information in the public report used in Roses, and 
added this amount to each group's related importer's indirect selling 
expenses and deducted the sum from USP. These companies are two of the 
largest firms under review in total sales of subject flowers to the 
United States. In addition, the majority of their sales were made 
through a related U.S. consignee. The effect of the ICC adjustment on 
the companies' weighted-average margins during the 5th, 6th, and 7th 
reviews ranged from an increase of 0.00 percent to 0.11 percent. As a 
result of these tests, we conclude that the ICC adjustment is 
insignificant. Further, we conclude that use of this insignificant 
adjustment would be inappropriate in these reviews, given the burdens 
of obtaining the necessary information to make an accurate ICC 
calculation at this stage of the reviews.
    Comment 5: The FTC argues that the Department should presume that 
respondents who withdrew their requests for revocation prior to 
verification would have failed verification. This action, the FTC 
contends, is a transparent attempt to avoid scrutiny by the Department. 
Therefore, in the FTC's view, the Department must assume that an audit 
of these firms' data would expose the inaccuracy of their responses. 
Therefore, the FTC asserts, the Department must assign a margin based 
on a first-tier BIA rate to sales by these firms.
    Asocolflores counters the FTC's argument by claiming that there is 
no legal or factual basis for applying BIA to companies that withdraw 
requests for revocation. Asocolflores maintains that there were several 
reasons why respondents withdrew their requests for revocation: certain 
companies determined that they were no longer eligible for revocation 
after reviewing their responses; other companies could not afford the 
expense of undergoing verification; others were deterred by the 
uncertainty created when the Department issued questionnaires 
indicating it might use third-country profits in its margin analysis. 
Asocolflores argues that BIA can be used only when a company refuses or 
otherwise fails to provide information requested by the Department, or 
fails verification.
    Department's Position: We disagree with FTC. A company will request 
revocation when it believes it will satisfy the requirements set forth 
in 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2). Conversely, a withdrawal of a request for 
revocation merely indicates that a company no longer believes the 
regulatory requirements will be satisfied. Because there is no record 
evidence indicating that companies that withdrew their request for 
revocation would have failed verification, we have no basis to assign 
these companies rates based on BIA.
    Comment 6: The FTC contends that the Department should not assign 
the ``all others'' rate to companies that could not be located by the 
Department and that have been assigned higher company-specific margins 
in previous reviews.
    Asocolflores agrees that companies with pre-existing rates should 
continue to receive those rates, whether they are lower or higher than 
the ``all others'' rate.
    Department's Position: Pursuant to section 751(a) of the Act, the 
Department conducts administrative reviews of particular companies ``if 
a request for such a review has been received.'' If no request for 
review is received for a company, the Department ``will instruct the 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties * * * at rates equal to 
the cash deposit of, or bond for, estimated antidumping duties. * * *'' 
19 CFR 353.22(e) (1994). In other words, ``in cases where a company 
makes cash deposits on entries of merchandise subject to antidumping 
duties, and no administrative review of those entries is requested, the 
cash deposit rate automatically becomes that company's assessment rate 
for those entries.'' Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 
782, 787-88 (CIT 1993). In this case, an administrative review was 
requested for the unlocatable firms in question. However, because we 
were unable to review these firms, the results are the same as if no 
review had been requested for these firms. Therefore, for the final 
results, unlocatable companies with pre-existing rates will be assessed 
at those rates. The cash deposit rates for these companies will remain 
the same.
    Comment 7: The FTC argues that, because the Department did not 
collect current third-country price data, its decision to reject third-
country sales as the basis for FMV is flawed. The FTC claims that the 
Department based its decision in these reviews on data collected in a 
past review, and that the records in these reviews suggest that the 
facts and circumstances of third-country sales have changed. The FTC 
contends that, because the Department neither collected nor analyzed 
third-country sales prices, its conclusions are unsubstantiated.
    The FTC claims that the analysis in the Department's notice of 
preliminary results is flawed. The FTC claims that the Department's 
position that the market patterns in third-country and U.S. markets are 
different is not supported by evidence on the record. Also, the FTC 
argues that the Department's focus on differences in holidays is 
misplaced in that a comparison of U.S. prices during a major holiday 
period to prices in a third country would be to respondents' advantage, 
because prices in the United States during peak flower-giving holidays 
are relatively greater than during non-peak periods, which is when the 
FTC contends dumping is occurring. Therefore, the FTC concludes that, 
in comparing third-country markets to the U.S. market, the only 
relevant inquiry is whether there are foreign holidays where price 
levels peak in foreign markets at a time when there is no comparable 
U.S. holiday. The FTC states that, without the relevant transaction 
data on the record, there is no basis on which to test this concern. 
The FTC also contends that, in any case, U.S. holidays and third-
country holidays mostly do coincide, and it cites a list of holidays it 
attached to its February 18, 1994 submission in support of this 
contention.
    With respect to the Department's preliminary decision that there 
are differences in market patterns, the FTC argues that flower 
producers in third countries do not face the same competitive pricing 
pressure that flower producers in the United States do, and the 
differences in price volatility can be attributed in no small part to 
the pricing practices of Colombian flower producers, which, according 
to the FTC, control roughly two-thirds of the U.S. market. The FTC also 
argues that the notion that U.S. customers only purchase flowers during 
special occasions is belied by import statistics generated by the 
Department, and that U.S. customers buy flowers throughout the year, 
not just on special occasions.
    The FTC objects to the Department's consideration of price 
correlation on the grounds that rejecting third-country sales because 
they do not follow the same patterns as in the U.S. market undermines 
the purpose of the antidumping law. The FTC contends that in any case 
where dumping exists, there will be a negative correlation in

[[Page 42841]]

prices between the U.S. and the foreign markets. The FTC concludes by 
stating that the Department's resort to CV does not comport with its 
consideration of the lack of price correlation because no correlation 
between constructed value and the U.S. market will necessarily exist.
    Asocolflores argues that the circumstances in third-country markets 
have not changed to such a degree to warrant reversing prior practice 
in this case, and that, although the Department did not collect sales 
data, the Department did collect other data which it used in reaching 
its conclusions. Specifically, Asocolflores states that the FTC itself 
has provided pricing information demonstrating that prices in the 
United States and third countries lacked correlation, peaked at 
different times, and were more stable in third countries during the 
PORs.
    Asocolflores claims that the FTC has provided no new legal analysis 
or factual information beyond what has previously been submitted and 
rejected by both the Department and the CIT. Asocolflores also takes 
issue with the FTC's argument that the Department's focus on U.S. 
holidays is misplaced. Asocolflores argues that the Department properly 
focused not just on U.S. holidays or just foreign holidays, but rather 
on the differences in U.S. and foreign flower-giving holidays and the 
consequent distortion that may result when a peak period in one market 
is compared to a non-peak period in a different market. Asocolflores 
further contends that the FTC's list of holidays is meaningless, 
because the FTC has not limited its list to flower-giving holidays; 
rather it has listed all holidays in both markets.
    Asocolflores claims that, while the FTC urges the Department not to 
focus exclusively on pricing trends or market patterns, it is precisely 
these factors which compelled the Department to reject third-country 
sales as a basis of FMV in the previous reviews. Asocolflores contends 
that, in light of the above arguments, there is not a basis for 
reversing an established case precedent upheld by the CIT.
    Department's Position: For purposes of these final results, we have 
continued to base FMV on constructed value because we remain convinced 
that third-country sales would be an inappropriate basis for FMV.
    Section 773(a)(2) of the Act allows the Department to base FMV on 
constructed value where FMV ``cannot be determined'' using home market 
or third-country sales. Where, as here, home market sales are 
inadequate to serve as a basis for foreign market value, section 
353.48(b) of our regulations states a preference for use of third-
country sales over constructed value ``if adequate information is 
available and can be verified.''
    We have used constructed value for Colombian flowers since the 
second administrative review of this proceeding. We did this for three 
reasons. First, we determined that prices in third-country markets were 
negatively correlated to prices in the United States. We determined 
that this negative correlation was caused by a variety of factors, 
including the greater volatility and sporadic nature of the U.S. 
market, differing peak price periods (holidays), and Colombian 
producers' relative lack of access to European markets. Second, because 
of the relative lack of access to European markets, Colombian producers 
generally sold to Europe only during peak months. Third, because the 
merchandise in question is highly perishable, most producers were found 
to plan the vast majority of their production for sale to the U.S. 
market, and generally sold excess production to markets that they may 
not have planned to sell in. This created a ``chance element'' that 
could cause price differences that were unrelated to dumping. See 
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 20491, 20492 (May 17, 1990) (Second 
Review). This decision was subsequently upheld by the CIT. See Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 1492, 1495-98 (CIT 1991).
    We disagree with the FTC's argument that we cannot decide this 
matter based on the existing record. We also disagree with petitioners 
that we were required to collect actual third-country sales data prior 
to our decision to reject third-country prices. While we did not 
collect third-country sales data from respondents, we did collect 
information about third-country markets. We received narrative 
responses to questions regarding third-country markets, ranging from 
general questions about market conditions to questions about specific 
companies' practices, experiences, and average profit levels. We also 
received price data for standard carnations for 1991 from the FTC for 
the United States and for the Aalsmeer market in Europe. The record 
shows no change in the differences in market volatilities, no change in 
the differences in holidays, and no change in the differences in end-
use of the merchandise. Based on the information we collected for these 
PORs, we determine that the differences in prevailing market conditions 
between European markets, which comprise the primary third-country 
markets, and the United States in these PORs are still too great to 
justify use of third-country prices.
    We find that there is still great price volatility in the United 
States which does not exist in third-country markets. We find that 
significant differences in the demand patterns between the markets 
continue to exist, which are explained largely by the differences in 
holidays and end-uses of subject merchandise.
    We find that the differences in volatility between third-country 
markets and the United States are largely attributable to differences 
in demand patterns. We have observed that demand and prices in the 
United States fluctuate much more widely than in European markets, and 
that demand and prices correlate strongly in the United States. That 
is, prices and demand are both high at the same time and are both low 
at the same time. This indicates that, in the United States, supply 
moves to meet demand, rather than the other way around. In a demand-
driven market, the quantities supplied move to meet demand, which 
explains why prices and quantities are both high at certain times and 
why both are low at other times. By contrast, in a supply- driven 
market, lower prices would lead to greater quantities purchased by 
consumers, and higher prices would cause fewer products purchased. 
There is no evidence of low prices coinciding with high demand or high 
sales quantities, or vice versa. Therefore, we infer that the United 
States is largely a demand-driven market. We conclude that demand 
exerts a considerably stronger influence on prices in the U.S. market 
than in Europe.
    With regard to holidays, we observe that differences in holidays 
are not in and of themselves a reason for rejecting third-country 
sales, but are a significant factor in explaining why there is no 
apparent correlation between prices in third-country markets and the 
United States. Further, we are not convinced by the FTC's claims that 
flower-buying holidays in third-country markets and the United States 
largely coincide. For example, the FTC argues that All Souls' Day, a 
European flower-buying holiday, coincides with Halloween. This is true, 
but because Halloween is not a holiday for which people in the United 
States typically purchase flowers, observing that the two holidays 
coincide does not demonstrate that third-country and U.S. flower-buying 
holidays coincide.
    The FTC is correct that flowers are bought throughout the year in 
the United States and not just on special

[[Page 42842]]

occasions. We do not conclude otherwise. The fact remains, however, 
that there are certain flower-buying holidays, such as Valentine's Day 
and Mother's Day, for which demand for subject merchandise increases 
markedly. In contrast, third-country market customers more often buy 
flowers for everyday use, such as decoration. See, e.g., Cienfuegos 
Group section A response (May 16, 1994), Flores de la Sabana S.A. 
supplemental response (April 15, 1994), Flores Tiba S.A. section A 
response (May 16, 1994), and HOSA Group section A response (May 16, 
1994). This was true when we originally decided that third-country 
prices were an inappropriate basis for FMV and was a factor we cited in 
that review in our decision. See Second Review at 20492. From this, we 
conclude that, for the most part, the end-use of subject merchandise 
significantly differs between the United States and third-country 
markets.
    The FTC, in its February 18, 1994 submission, provided third-
country market price data which, according to the FTC, demonstrated 
that the correlation between prices in third-country markets and the 
United States was sufficiently strong to justify reversing our 
decision. We examined the price data submitted by the FTC covering 1991 
and found that third-country and U.S. prices moved in opposite 
directions in approximately half of the months of the year. This 
indicates that there is neither a strong positive nor negative 
correlation between prices in the United States and third-country 
markets. Our analysis of correlation is inconclusive and, therefore, we 
turned to other factors in our analysis, which are described above.
    Finally, we disagree with the FTC's statement that there will be 
negative price correlations wherever dumping occurs. Dumping can exist 
in any situation regardless of price correlation. For example, USP and 
FMV could move together, i.e., be perfectly correlated, and there would 
still be dumping as long as FMV was consistently greater than USP.
    While we do find that, since our determination in the Second 
Review, Colombian producers have gained greater access to third-country 
markets and our analysis of the correlation between U.S. and third-
country prices during the PORs was inconclusive, none of the other 
factors that affected our decision, including those that explain the 
lack of an apparent correlation of prices, has changed significantly 
enough to warrant our abandoning CV as the basis for FMV.
    Comment 8: The FTC argues that, if the Department chooses not to 
use third-country sales as the basis of FMV, it should use actual 
third-country profits and general expenses in calculating CV. The FTC 
contends that CV is intended as a substitute for a price-based FMV, and 
the profit and general expenses used in calculating CV should be equal 
to the profit and general expenses on those prices that are the basis 
for FMV. The FTC observes that the Department collected and verified 
third-country profit data, and that using the statutory minimum does 
not reflect the price discrimination that exists between markets. The 
FTC argues that the requirements for using profit on third-country 
sales are met in this case, citing Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly-
Phenylene Terephthaliamide from the Netherlands, 59 FR 23684, 23686 
(1994), as an example of a case in which the Department calculated 
profits on the basis of third-country sales.
    Asocolflores argues that using third-country profit and general 
expenses for the purposes of CV would effectively create a surrogate 
for third-country sales. Asocolflores contends that the Department has 
recognized this principle and rejected the same argument in Roses at 
6994, stating that, ``where there was a viable, but dissimilar third-
country market, [the Department] used U.S. surrogates and the statutory 
eight percent profit because [it has] determined that third-country 
markets do not provide an appropriate basis for foreign market value.''
    Asocolflores argues that many of the same objections to the use of 
third-country sales apply to the use of third-country profit. For 
example, Asocolflores notes, because prices in the U.S. and third-
country markets are incomparable due to timing and volatility 
differences, the profit margins will not be comparable. Asocolflores 
also notes that, because sales in third-country markets are not made in 
all months, peak periods are not balanced by off-peak periods. 
Moreover, Asocolflores contends, using third-country profits in an 
annual CV is further distortive because it is being used as a 
comparison to monthly- averaged USPs. Asocolflores argues that the FMV 
that the FTC would have the Deparment create is not representative of 
prices in any market because it would combine a general cost of 
production with U.S. selling expenses, U.S. imputed credit expenses, 
third-country general expenses, and third-country profits.
    Finally, Asocolflores concludes that using third-country profits 
would violate established case precedent. Respondents assert that they 
have relied upon this methodology and the Department cannot now change 
its methodologies without compelling reasons, citing Shikoku Chemicals 
Corp. v. United States, 795 F. Supp. 417, 421 (CIT 1992).
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner. Section 
773(e)(1) of the Act states that CV 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 . . .'' Section 353.50(a) of our regulations elaborates 
on this requirement by noting that CV will include general expenses and 
profit ``usually reflected in sales of merchandise by producers in the 
home market country * * *''
    In this case, we are not using home market prices for FMV because 
home market flower sales are either not viable or outside the ordinary 
course of trade. See, e.g., Second Review at 20492. We are not using 
third-country prices for FMV because, as discussed in our response to 
Comment 7, an unusual fact pattern applies in this case which would 
cause comparisons to third- country prices to be distortive.
    Because we rejected the prices of the home market and third 
countries for purposes of FMV, we find it necessary to reject the 
general expenses and profits associated with these sales. Just as home 
market and third-country prices will not provide an accurate 
measurement of dumping in this case, the general expenses and profit 
associated with these sales are not of the amount ``usually reflected 
in sales of merchandise of the same general class or kind as the 
merchandise under consideration.'' Thus, we decline to use these 
amounts for purposes of CV.
    We disagree with the FTC that our position in Aramid Fiber compels 
us to use third-country selling expenses and profit in this case. 
Aramid Fiber used viable third-country markets as a basis for FMV. See 
Aramid Fiber at 23685. Here, we are unable to use third-country sales 
as the basis of FMV.
    For the final results, then, we have used the eight-percent 
statutory minimum profit. See Alhambra Foundry Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 685 F. Supp. 1252, 1259-60 (CIT 1988) (upholding use of 
statutory eight-percent minimum profit where no viable home market or 
third country market exists). In our preliminary results, we stated 
that we used respondents' actual profit for

[[Page 42843]]

merchandise of the same general class or kind where this amount was 
greater than the statutory minimum. However, for these final results, 
we determine that there are no cases in which a respondent's home 
market profit exceeded eight percent. Therefore, use of the statutory 
minimum profit is appropriate.
    For general expenses, it is the Department's practice to use U.S. 
selling expenses as a surrogate when home market and third-country 
market sales form an inappropriate basis for FMV. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tubeless Steel Disc 
Wheels from Brazil, 52 FR 8947, 8948 (March 20, 1987); Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Granite 
Products from Italy, 53 FR 27187, 27191 (July 19, 1988). Furthermore, 
our questionnaire instructed respondents that ``if home market or 
third-country sales are not being used to establish foreign market 
value, provide selling expenses on U.S. sales of the subject flower 
type.''
    For the preliminary results and in prior reviews of this order, we 
used only those U.S. selling expenses incurred in Colombia for purposes 
of calculating a surrogate value for selling expenses. However, we have 
revised this figure in these final results to include all U.S. selling 
expenses, regardless of whether these expenses were incurred by the 
flower grower, its offshore invoicer, or its related U.S. importer. 
This revision allows us to utilize the entire universe of U.S. selling 
expenses as the surrogate, regardless of any internal corporate 
decision as to whether certain selling expenses should be incurred in 
Colombia or transferred to an offshore invoicer or an affiliated U.S. 
importer.
    Comment 9: The FTC argues that the Department should not allow 
respondents to offset CV by the amount of revenue on cuttings, other 
materials, or services sold in Colombia. The FTC argues that these 
items are not production outputs, as are culls, but rather production 
inputs.
    Asocolflores responds that the revenues described are an 
appropriate offset to cost, and claims that the Department has allowed 
such revenue as an offset to cost in prior reviews. Asocolflores states 
that materials such as cuttings are part of growers'' costs, and argues 
that, if a grower has more cuttings than necessary and sells some of 
them, the revenue from those cuttings should be allowed as an offset to 
costs. Asocolflores contends that including these revenues in the cull 
revenues is the easiest way to report them in the Department's Lotus 
spreadsheet, and that where these revenues are reported is less 
important than whether they are allowed.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC that items such as 
cuttings (and similar materials) are not created in the process of 
flower production, as are culls, but rather are inputs or materials 
used in producing flowers or can be a separate product line in itself. 
Also, the sale of services does not relate to the cost of producing 
flowers and therefore should not be allowed as an offset. The fact that 
a grower may subsidize its flower production with revenue earned from 
other operations is not relevant to the dumping calculation and may 
disguise dumping that is occurring. Therefore, we only allow revenues 
from operations directly related to flower production and/or sales to 
offset the cost of producing subject merchandise. Further, these items 
must be properly itemized and tied to the production and/or sales of 
flowers. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From India, 60 FR 
10545, 10547 (Feb. 27, 1995). Therefore, for companies that reported 
such revenues as an aggregate part of their cull sales revenue we have 
disallowed the entire offset, unless the companies provided a breakdown 
of the various revenues they reported in the cull revenue line item 
elsewhere in their responses.
    We recognize that our decision represents a departure from our past 
practice in this case. See Fourth Review at 15168. However, we have 
reexamined this issue and we conclude that, generally, cuttings, while 
an input into the production of flowers, are a distinct industry. Many 
companies are exclusively in the business of selling cuttings. If a 
company returned cuttings to the supplier and received a credit for 
those cuttings, then it should report the cost of cuttings minus the 
rebate. If a company produced or bought cuttings which it later sold, 
it should report only the cost of those cuttings used in the production 
of subject merchandise. To allow a company to report the revenues it 
receives on sales of cuttings not used in flower production would be 
equivalent to offsetting cost by the amount of profit received on 
nonsubject merchandise, which we do not allow. If a company had broken 
out its cost data and cull revenue data in such a way that we could 
correct it, then we would do so. However, where companies did not 
provide sufficient detail of their cost response to permit us to make 
such corrections, we have assumed as partial BIA that all costs 
associated with cuttings, other materials, and services reported by the 
companies are not related to flower production, and we have disallowed 
the cull revenue offset for the reasons outlined above.
    Comment 10: The FTC argues that the Department should disallow any 
interest income offsets to interest expenses where the interest income 
was either long-term or not related to production. The FTC also argues 
that the Department should disallow offsets to interest expenses that 
are not interest income such as prompt payment discounts, monetary 
correction, or exchange rate gains.
    Asocolflores does not contest the FTC's argument in general, but 
maintains that some of the revenues or discounts mentioned by the FTC 
should be allowed as an offset to cost, whether in the interest income 
section of the Lotus spreadsheet or elsewhere. Asocolflores 
specifically describes the situations for Flores San Juan and the 
Sabana Group. Asocolflores also maintains that, contrary to the FTC's 
statements, monetary income is a permissible offset to financial 
expense. Asocolflores claims that, in Gray Portland Cement and Clinker 
from Mexico, 58 FR 25803, 25806 (1993) (Comment 4) (Portland Cement), 
the Department expressly allowed monetary correction income resulting 
from monetary position gains as an offset to financial expense.
    Department's Position: We agree in part with the FTC. Only short-
term interest income directly related to operations may be used as an 
offset to interest expense. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and 
Alloy Steel, Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Italy, 60 FR 31981, 
31991 (June 19, 1995).
    In Portland Cement, we included monetary gains and losses in the 
calculation of net financing expenses for the respondent because, in 
that case, the monetary correction under Mexican GAAP pertained solely 
to the holding of monetary assets and liabilities. Given these 
circumstances, not including monetary gains and losses in the 
calculation of net financing expenses would not have accounted for the 
effects of Mexico's significant inflation during the review period in 
question and would have distorted the firm's corporate financial 
expenses and income. See Portland Cement at 25806. In the case of 
Colombian GAAP, this restriction does not apply. See our response to 
Comment 11, below, concerning our treatment of inflation adjustments in 
this case.
    With respect to Asocolflores' reference to San Juan, we do not 
permit

[[Page 42844]]

interest revenue in excess of interest expenses to offset other costs. 
See our response to Comment 32, below. Finally, with respect to 
Asocolflores' reference to Sabana, the firm reduced its financial 
expenses by an amount for discounts which it received from suppliers. 
However, the firm did not provide the requisite information for us to 
properly assign these discounts to costs of the applicable flower 
types. See our response to Comment 41, below. Therefore, we have not 
adjusted for these discounts.
    Comment 11: The FTC argues that the Department should use 
respondents' reported inflation adjustments as reflected in their 
financial statements, but should not allow respondents' claimed 
offsetting adjustment for monetary correction. The FTC argues that 
failure to include the inflation adjustment would distort production 
costs for purposes of the dumping analysis. The FTC argues that 
excluding the inflation adjustment would result in costs which are not 
reflective of current price levels and thus produces an improper 
matching of revenues and expenses. The FTC cites Roses in support of 
its argument. The FTC further notes that certain respondents have 
included monetary correction income as cull revenue or other financial 
income.
    Asocolflores argues that the Department should not make a one-sided 
adjustment for inflation to depreciation and amortization costs. 
Asocolflores states that the Department did not gather actual inflation 
adjustment data from the companies in Roses, but performed its own 
incorrect calculations and made only a partial adjustment. According to 
Asocolflores, the Department should disregard the inflation adjustments 
and calculate CV using a company's actual, unadjusted costs. If the 
Department does use this data, Asocolflores contends it must take into 
consideration not only the increase in depreciation and amortization 
expenses, but also the monetary correction resulting from the inflation 
adjustments to depreciable assets. Respondents assert that the 
Department allowed monetary correction offsets in Portland Cement and 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico, 55 FR 39186 (September 25, 
1990) (Cookware from Mexico), and there is no basis for disregarding it 
here. Asocolflores contends that the Department needs to focus not just 
on the adjustments to non-monetary depreciable or amortizable assets 
which result only in changes to a company's balance sheet as it did in 
Roses, but also on adjustments to both the costs and income reported in 
the profit and loss statement.
    Asocolflores argues that three separate adjustments are required to 
perform the inflation adjustments required by Colombian tax laws. 
First, Asocolflores states that the value of assets must be adjusted to 
reflect the hypothetical increase in value due to inflation. 
Asocolflores explains that this amount is recorded as a debit to the 
asset account and a credit to a ``monetary correction'' account that 
all companies are required to establish in their books, and the 
monetary correction account is a profit and loss statement account 
which ``corrects'' the monetary value of non-monetary assets, 
liabilities, and equity for inflation. Second, Asocolflores asserts, 
the upward adjustment to the value of the asset leads to an upward 
adjustment to depreciation expense. Asocolflores explains that the 
companies record depreciation expense calculated at historical cost 
plus the adjustment due to inflation as a debit to the depreciation 
expense account and a credit to the accumulated depreciation account. 
Third, Asocolflores states that the companies adjust the accumulated 
depreciation account for inflation. Therefore, Asocolflores asserts, 
the amount of the adjustment is debited to the monetary correction 
account and credited to the accumulated depreciation account.
    Asocolflores explains that companies generally responded to the 
Department's questionnaire by providing the data concerning both the 
depreciation expense (cost) and monetary correction (income) effects of 
the inflation adjustment to depreciable/amortizable assets, resulting 
in an increase of depreciation or amortization expense. Asocolflores 
states that companies also reported the monetary correction they are 
required to recognize on their books as a result of the difference 
between required inflation adjustments to asset value and accumulated 
depreciation. Asocolflores explains that the companies generally 
reported this monetary correction as an offset to costs as ``cull 
revenue,'' since this was the only line on the Lotus spreadsheet on 
which such income could be reported and still allow the Department to 
use the spreadsheet to calculate CV properly.
    Asocolflores argues that, in cases involving non-hyperinflationary 
economies such as Colombia, the Department ordinarily does not make any 
adjustments to depreciation or amortization expenses for inflation. 
Asocolflores cites Portland Cement to support its contention that the 
only possible legal basis for including inflation adjustments is that 
(1) they are required by Colombian GAAP, and (2) they are not 
distortive. Asocolflores contends that, if the Department makes 
adjustments, they must reflect the full adjustments required in 
Colombia. According to Asocolflores, any adjustment made to just 
depreciation and amortization is distortive from the perspective of 
cost accounting and should therefore be disregarded. Asocolflores 
further contends that, by calculating CV on a monthly basis, the 
Department is already ensuring that it does not distort the dumping 
calculations by mismatching costs and revenues. Asocolflores contends 
that the Department's precedent in Roses, where it recognized the 
unfairness of comparing monthly prices with an annual CV calculated 
using full-year inflation adjustments and adjusted for inflation only 
through the middle of the period so as to estimate a midpoint average 
cost, contradicts the intended approach in this case of using full 
period inflation adjustments in a comparison with unadjusted monthly 
sales prices.
    In rebuttal, the FTC argues that the Department should reject 
Asocolflores' July 21, 1995 submission as untimely. The FTC argues that 
the submission contained new factual information, which was submitted 
after the preliminary results of review. The FTC argues that the 
Department should not allow an offset for monetary correction income 
that does not ultimately benefit flower producers and is not real 
income. The FTC also argues that, although the Department has accepted 
an income offset in the treatment of monetary correction in Portland 
Cement and Cookware from Mexico, this acceptance does not compel the 
Department to make an offset in these reviews. Finally, the FTC 
contends that, if the Department not use respondents' supplemental 
inflation adjusted costs, it should ensure that all monetary correction 
income included in respondents' original responses has been excluded 
from the database.
    Department's Position: We disagree with respondents. For these 
final results, we have used respondents' revised depreciation and 
amortization expense figures, which have been adjusted for the effects 
of inflation, in calculating CV. However, we have excluded the amount 
of monetary correction income that respondents claimed as an offset to 
production costs. With respect to the FTC's argument that we should 
reject Asocolflores' July 21, 1995 submission as untimely, we disagree. 
We requested this information

[[Page 42845]]

in our supplemental questionnaire of June 21, 1995 concerning inflation 
adjustment.
    In general, CV includes amounts for depreciation of fixed assets 
that are used to produce the subject merchandise. Most often, these 
fixed assets are recorded for normal accounting purposes at their 
historical cost (i.e., the original purchase price of the assets). 
Consequently, amounts incurred for depreciation reflect the historical 
cost of the underlying fixed assets spread systematically over the 
assets' useful lives. In an inflationary economic environment, however, 
depreciating fixed assets based on historical costs fails to adequately 
measure the cost of those assets relative to the sales income that 
results from the merchandise they produce. For this reason, in many 
countries that experience high inflation, GAAP requires that fixed 
assets be indexed (i.e., increased) annually to reflect the increasing 
nominal value of those assets as stated in prevailing currency units.
    The Department also recognizes the effects of inflation on costs in 
its antidumping analysis. Specifically, in cases involving respondents 
whose home market economies are hyperinflationary (which the Department 
considers to be annual inflation greater than 50 percent), the 
Department resorts to the use of monthly replacement costs. See, e.g., 
Final Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon From 
Brazil, 59 FR 732 (January 6, 1994).
    In other instances, where the home market economies, while not 
reaching the Department's annual hyperinflationary threshold during the 
period of investigation (POI) or the POR, nonetheless exhibit 
significant inflation from year to year, the Department has adjusted 
respondents' depreciation expenses in order to permit a more 
appropriate matching of costs and prices based on equivalent currency 
units. See, e.g., Aimcor, Alabama Silicon, Inc., and American Alloys, 
Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 94-192 (CIT 1994) (Ferrosilicon From 
Venezuela). Stated another way, at hyperinflationary levels, the 
Department adjusts all production costs for the effects of inflation. 
On the other hand, at inflationary levels that, if compounded from year 
to year, significantly affect the value of historically-based fixed 
assets, the Department adjusts only depreciation expense for the 
effects of inflation.
    In the instant case, while the Colombian economy did not experience 
hyperinflation during any of the PORs, it did see annual inflation 
rates between 20 and 30 percent in the five years leading up to and 
including the PORs. Therefore, the effect of compounded annual 
inflation results in a distortion of historical depreciation. More 
specifically, the compounded annual inflation results in an 
understatement of costs. In order to correct this distortion, the 
Department asked respondents to submit revised CV figures reflecting 
depreciation expense amounts adjusted for inflation. The inclusion of 
inflation-corrected depreciation amounts in CV is consistent with past 
Departmental practice, as demonstrated in Ferrosilicon from Venezuela, 
Roses from Colombia and Roses from Ecuador. The Department's 
methodology corrects understated depreciation and amortization costs, 
which results from significant inflation compounded over some extended 
time period. This approach is also consistent with Colombian tax law, 
which requires firms to revalue certain financial statement accounts to 
reflect the effects of inflation experienced in each financial 
reporting period. See Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Joseph Spetrini, 
dated November 8, 1995.
    As noted above, in antidumping cases involving countries whose 
economies are continually marked by high inflation (but not 
hyperinflation), the Department has adjusted depreciation expenses 
reported by respondents while allowing other costs, such as materials 
and labor, to be recorded at their current, nominal values. This has 
been done in recognition of the fact that, over time, consistently high 
inflation rates greatly affect the nominal value of fixed assets that 
are recorded for accounting purposes at historical costs. At the same 
time, however, because the price level changes in these cases do not 
reach those defined by the Department's hyperinflation threshold, this 
practice purposely ignores other inflation effects that can occur 
within the POI or POR. Such effects are numerous and can either 
increase or decrease costs or prices as stated in real terms. Yet 
because these inflation effects are contained largely within the POI or 
POR, unless demonstrated to be otherwise, their net effect on the 
Department's analysis is presumed to be minimal.
    Regarding respondents' claim that our methodology imposes a ``one-
sided'' adjustment, we note that the inflation accounting adjustment to 
fixed assets does not ``create'' income. That is, the fact that a 
company may own fixed assets does not in some way earn that company 
income simply as a result of accounting for inflation. Rather, 
ownership of fixed assets at best acts as a hedge against inflation, 
neither creating nor generating a loss in asset value.
    The purpose of requiring an adjustment to fixed assets under 
Colombian GAAP (or under the GAAP of any country which accounts for 
inflation) is to measure the gains and losses on monetary assets and 
liabilities, such as cash or accounts payable, which are exposed to 
inflation. The Colombian tax law adjusts for high inflation by 
requiring a form of price-level accounting, a method that revalues 
fixed assets to provide constant currency, as opposed to historical 
cost information.
    The mechanics of the inflation adjustment for fixed assets require 
companies to increase or ``debit'' fixed assets by an amount equal to 
the year's inflation index. At the same time, as part of the accounting 
entry, a corresponding ``credit'' is recorded to a monetary correction 
account, which has the effect of increasing financial statement income 
for the same year. This is the income that respondents maintain is 
somehow generated by their fixed assets. There is no merit, however, to 
respondents' claim that the Department is making only a ``one-sided'' 
adjustment by ignoring the ``credit'' to income. The ``debits'' to the 
fixed asset (e.g., the flower plants) and the ``credit'' to financial 
income are in no way related for purposes of calculating CV. As stated 
above, the revaluation of flower plants and other fixed asset costs to 
account for inflation does not, in and of itself, create income. 
Further, it does not create income related to flower production.
    We disagree with respondents' assertion that it is inappropriate to 
focus on adjusting CV for the effects of inflation on depreciation and 
amortization expense. That is precisely what the Department did in 
Ferrosilicon from Venezuela, where the Department used a depreciation 
expense figure which was based upon revalued, as opposed to historical, 
fixed assets. Inflation adjustments were not applied to any other 
balance sheet or income statement accounts. Moreover, as in Colombia, 
the inflation rate in Venezuela prior to and during the POI was 
significant, but failed to reach the Department's hyperinflation 
threshold.
    We also find that respondent's reliance on Portland Cement and 
Cookware from Mexico is misplaced. It is important to note that 
inflation accounting practices vary from country to country. In the 
cases cited by respondents, under Mexican GAAP, the Department's 
acceptance of the monetary correction related solely to each 
respondent's financing expenses

[[Page 42846]]

and not, as Asocolflores asserts, to the fixed assets and depreciation 
expense.
    We also find respondents' contention that it is inappropriate to 
compare annualized costs, which have been adjusted for inflation, to 
monthly U.S. sales prices, which have not been adjusted, to be without 
merit. What respondents fail to recognize in making this argument is 
that production costs were incurred in the Colombian economy, which, as 
discussed earlier, has experienced significant inflation for a number 
of years. The U.S. sales prices, on the other hand, are denominated in 
U.S. dollars and have occurred in an economy which has experienced 
extremely low inflation during this same time period. In consideration 
of these important differences, our comparison of inflation-corrected 
Colombian costs to the nominal U.S. prices is valid and appropriate for 
these reviews.
Company-Specific Issues Raised by the FTC
    Comment 12: The FTC points out that Agricola de los Alisos has been 
included among the companies that the Department could not locate 
although the company had filed a letter notifying the Department that 
the company was liquidated in December 1992. The FTC argues that 
Agricola de los Alisos and any other company that has officially gone 
out of business should be assigned a margin based on a second-tier rate 
of BIA, consistent with the standard enunciated in previous reviews.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC that we should not 
treat Agricola de los Alisos as a company that could not be located. 
Agricola de los Alisos filed a letter and certification with the 
Department in May 1994 indicating that it is no longer in business. 
Consistent with our treatment of companies that are no longer in 
business, we have applied a second-tier BIA rate to Agricola de los 
Alisos. See Fourth Review at 15173.
    Comment 13: The FTC notes that Florex reduced the expenses of its 
invoicing agent by short-term interest income allegedly gained on 
working capital. However, because these expenses are related to the 
sales of subject merchandise, not the production thereof, the FTC 
asserts that they are not eligible for such an offset adjustment. The 
FTC requests that the Department increase the selling expenses incurred 
by Florex's related invoicing agent by the amount of short-term 
interest income.
    Asocolflores agrees that these expenses are selling expenses, and 
not related to production. However, Asocolflores contends that to 
ignore the short-term interest income would distort the actual selling 
expenses of this agent. Furthermore, Asocolflores asserts, the 
Department has visited this issue in previous reviews and has rejected 
it.
    Department's Position: We examined the expenses reported by 
Florex's related selling agent and have determined that some, if not 
all, of the interest income derives from intracompany loans. It is the 
Department's practice to ignore such intracompany transfers regardless 
of whether they relate to sales or production. See Certain Fresh Cut 
Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 56 FR 32169, 32172 (July 15, 1991). For these final results, 
because we could not segregate the intracompany loans from the interest 
income reported, we have denied the entire interest income adjustment.
    Comment 14: The FTC asserts that Cultivos Miramonte (Miramonte) 
departed from its normal accounting records by reporting a different 
depreciation period for its ``land adequation'' costs than it records 
in its normal accounting system (Miramonte explained in its response 
that land adequation is comprised of expenses to level the terrain, dig 
ditches, and construct drainage systems for the greenhouses). The FTC 
asserts that Miramonte has not provided evidence that the five-year 
useful life recorded in its accounting records is inappropriate nor 
that the 20-year useful life reported in its response is more 
appropriate. The FTC asks the Department to recalculate Miramonte's 
land adequation costs on a five-year basis as per its accounting 
records.
    Asocolflores rebuts that Miramonte has consistently used this 
methodology since the third review of this order. Asocolflores argues 
that the FTC has never raised this issue and the Department has twice 
verified Miramonte and has accepted its methodology in the third and 
the fourth reviews.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC. Our practice is to 
adhere to an individual firm's recording of costs in accordance with 
GAAP of its home country if we are satisfied that such principles 
reasonably reflect the costs of producing the subject merchandise. See, 
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol from South Africa, 60 FR 22556 (May 8, 1995) (``The Department 
normally relies on the respondent's books and records prepared in 
accordance with the home country GAAP unless these accounting 
principles do not reasonably reflect the COP of the merchandise''). 
This practice has been sustained by the CIT. See, e.g., Laclede Steel 
Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 94-160 at 21-25 (CIT October 12, 1994), 
upholding the Department's decision to reject the respondent's reported 
depreciation expenses in favor of verified information obtained 
directly from the company's financial statements that was consistent 
with Korean GAAP; Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 454 
(CIT 1987), upholding the Department's decision to rely on COP 
information from respondent's normal financial statements maintained in 
conformity with GAAP.
    In this case, Miramonte has departed from its normal accounting 
records in its reporting of the ``land adequation'' costs included in 
its depreciation expense. This was in contrast to instructions in our 
questionnaire, which stated that ``regardless of whether your company 
capitalized expenditures or expensed them, the cost submission should 
be consistent with your normal production accounting system and based 
on your actual accounting records, if your system and records are in 
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).'' 
Miramonte claimed that the greenhouse manufacturer expected the 
greenhouse to have a useful life of 20 years. Accordingly, Miramonte 
amortized its greenhouse expenses over a 20-year period in both its 
accounting records and its response. In contrast to greenhouse 
expenses, the land adequation costs were amortized over a five-year 
period in its accounting records. Although Miramonte stated that it 
considered land adequation to have the same useful life as a 
greenhouse, it never explained why it treated land adequation expenses 
differently in its accounting records, nor did Miramonte justify why a 
five-year amortization did not reasonably reflect the cost of producing 
the merchandise. Thus, we agree with the FTC that Miramonte failed to 
justify that the five-year amortization of land adequation expenses in 
its accounting records does not reasonably reflect the cost of 
producing the subject merchandise.
    With respect to Asocolflores' contention that we have verified and 
accepted this methodology in previous reviews, we first note that 
verification of the values used in a methodology does not indicate 
acceptance of the methodology itself. We agree with Asocolflores that 
the FTC has not raised this issue in the past. An error in methodology, 
unmentioned and undiscovered in previous reviews, does not constitute 
explicit acceptance of that methodology. Nor are we bound by past

[[Page 42847]]

reviews when we do discover a significant error. See Shikoku Chemicals 
Corp. v. United States, 795 F.Supp. 417 (CIT 1992). In examining this 
methodology in these instant reviews, we have found the error to be 
significant. Miramonte's reported land adequation costs are 
approximately one-fourth of the amount recorded in its accounting 
records. Therefore, for these final results, we have increased 
Miramonte's depreciation expense to reflect the same amount of land 
adequation costs recorded in its accounting records.
    Comment 15: The FTC claims that Industrial Agricola departed from 
its ordinary accounting practice in preparing the questionnaire 
response by amortizing pre-production expenses and depreciating 
greenhouse costs even though such items have been expensed in its 
books. The FTC argues that, unless Industrial Agricola can show that 
the normal methodology for depreciation creates a distortion, it should 
not depart from its normal cost accounting procedures. Citing Cemex 
S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-72, 29 Cust. Bull., No. 20, 119, 128 
(CIT April 24, 1995), the FTC argues that the fact that accelerated 
depreciation is permitted under the tax rules of the country in 
question does not establish that such depreciation is reasonable. The 
FTC requests that the Department correct Industrial Agricola's response 
to eliminate any distortion.
    Industrial Agricola maintains that it followed its practice in 
previous reviews of amortizing pre-production expenses and depreciating 
greenhouse costs even though such items have been expensed in its 
books. Respondent contends that the Department has recognized that, in 
this case, these specific expenses and costs are appropriately 
amortized in order to avoid distortions and to match costs with 
revenues.
    Department's Position: We agree with Industrial Agricola. It is our 
policy to allow companies to depreciate capital assets over their 
useful lives and to amortize pre-production expenses in order to avoid 
distortions in the cost of production, as well as to match costs with 
revenues. This is true even where the firm has expensed the costs in 
its books.
    Normally, we require respondents to report production expenses 
pursuant to their home country GAAP. However, we may reject the use of 
home country GAAP as the basis for calculating production costs if we 
determine that the accounting principles at issue unreasonably distort 
or misstate costs for purposes of an antidumping analysis. In these 
instances, we may use alternative cost calculation methodologies that 
more accurately capture the costs incurred during the POR.
    Though Colombian GAAP permits companies to expense the purchase of 
fixed assets when they are incurred, U.S. GAAP calls for the 
depreciation and recovery of costs over the expected productive life of 
a fixed asset. The estimated useful life of a fixed asset is the period 
over which the asset may reasonably be expected to be useful to the 
individual's business or to the production of income. See Fresh 
Kiwifruit from New Zealand; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 59 FR 48596, 48598 (Sept. 22, 1994). Similarly, 
amortizing pre-production expenses allows a firm to more accurately 
match these expenses with the sales to which they are attributable. In 
this instance, because the economic useful life of Industrial 
Agricola's greenhouses and pre-production expenses extend past the year 
of purchase, we find that its method of accounting for these costs in 
its own books does not reasonably reflect costs for our antidumping 
analysis. Therefore, we accept Industrial Agricola's methodology of 
amortizing pre-production expenses and depreciating greenhouse costs.
    Comment 16: The FTC claims that Flores Aurora's amortized pre- 
production costs may have been inaccurately calculated. The FTC alleges 
that pre-production expenses were reported as percentages rather than 
amounts as required by the questionnaire. The FTC requests that the 
Department correct Flores Aurora's response so that the actual amounts, 
and not percentages, are used in the relevant lines in the Lotus 
spreadsheet.
    Flores Aurora states that it reported pre-production costs 
accurately in peso amounts and that the FTC misinterpreted Aurora's 
narrative response without examining the relevant section of the Lotus 
spreadsheet Aurora provided.
    Department's Position: We agree with Flores Aurora that it reported 
pre-production cost accurately. In Aurora's August 19, 1994, 
supplemental response, it reported expenses as peso amounts, not 
percentages. We subsequently verified this reporting methodology. See 
Flores Aurora Verification Report at 10. Therefore, we have accepted 
Flores Aurora's calculations.
    Comment 17: The FTC claims that Flores Aurora revised its packing 
expense calculations, involving a factor for packing hours per flower 
type, after verification. The FTC asserts that the new methodology is 
based on only a one-day survey to derive the factor and is therefore 
questionable. The FTC contends that the packing hours by flower type 
could have been affected by the identity or competency of the workers 
as well as the number of orders processed that day. The FTC urges the 
Department to require Flores Aurora to resubmit its calculations based 
on a longer survey period or assign packing labor costs based on BIA.
    Flores Aurora states that its packing expense data was revised and 
reviewed by the Department during verification. The firm also argues 
that, since it does not keep records that segregate packing costs by 
flower type, it was reasonable for the Department to accept the survey.
    Department's Position: We agree with Flores Aurora that packing 
labor was revised during verification and not after verification. We 
reviewed and verified the firm's methodology for calculating expenses 
and found it to be accurate. See Flores Aurora Verification Report, 
November 4, 1994. For packing expenses, Aurora initially calculated a 
standard packing labor and materials cost per box for each flower type, 
then multiplied this cost by the number of boxes shipped to each 
customer during each POR. During verification, we compared Aurora's 
standard costs to actual costs as indicated by Aurora's available 
source documents and asked the firm to report actual costs based on the 
variance. To calculate the actual number of hours needed to pack a box 
of each flower type, Aurora submitted worksheets compiling packing 
labor information from each of its packing rooms for one workday. We 
find this methodology to be reasonable because the survey includes 
virtually all of Aurora's packing workers and, therefore, would not be 
unduly affected by the competency of the workers surveyed. In other 
words, the large number of workers included in the survey ensured an 
accurate average. Also, since the survey was used to compute the 
amounts of time needed to pack a box of each type of flower, order 
variations on any given day are not a significant factor. Based on our 
verification efforts, we are satisfied that Aurora's revised figures 
are accurate.
    Comment 18: The FTC argues that the Funza Group had Colombian 
borrowings during the 5th review and, therefore, credit expenses for 
the 5th review should be recalculated based on a peso-denominated 
interest rate.
    The Funza Group argues that a U.S. borrowing rate should apply to 
credit expenses for Funza and all other respondents.

[[Page 42848]]

    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC. See our response to 
Comment 22, below.
    Comment 19: The FTC argues that the Funza Group deviated from its 
accounting records without reason. According to the FTC, the Group 
expensed greenhouse costs in its records, but for purposes of the 
response it depreciated the expenses on a monthly basis over the life 
of the greenhouse. The FTC contends that depreciation costs of 
greenhouse expenses should be recalculated to conform to the firm's 
normal cost practices.
    The Funza Group claims that, because a greenhouse has a useful life 
exceeding the period in which the expense is incurred, costs would be 
grossly distorted if the Department expensed them as the Group did in 
its books and records.
    Department's Position: We agree with the Funza Group. Although the 
company may have expensed greenhouse costs for tax purposes, we find 
that this method of accounting distorts costs for purposes of our 
analysis. Depreciating fixed assets over their useful life more 
accurately reflects the cost of sales during each POR. See our response 
to Comment 15, above, concerning a similar situation with Industrial 
Agricola.
    Comment 20: The FTC claims that Funza allocated Colombia Flower 
Council (CFC) charges by flower type based on number of boxes shipped, 
which is contrary to the Department's questionnaire instructions to 
allocate such costs on the basis of sales value, rather than volume, if 
they are paid as a fixed percentage of sales. The FTC requests that the 
Department reallocate these costs on the basis of value and deduct them 
from USP as direct selling expenses.
    The Funza Group argues that CFC fees are assessed based on a fixed 
charge for each box of flowers sold; therefore, the Funza Group 
maintains, the charges should be allocated based on the number of boxes 
sold rather than the relative value of sales.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the FTC. We generally 
prefer expenses to be allocated on the basis in which they are 
incurred. Because the CFC fees are incurred on a per-box basis, we have 
accepted the Funza Group's allocation methodology.
General Issues Raised by Asocolflores
    Comment 21: Asocolflores requests that the Department issue duty 
rates consistent with the units in which each respondent reported its 
data. Asocolflores expresses concern that the Department might assess a 
per-stem duty rate for companies that reported their data in bunches, 
and that this would cause the assessed duties and duty deposits to 
greatly exceed the actual amount of dumping the Department found in its 
margin analysis.
    Department's Position: We intend to issue duty rates either on the 
basis of the units in which the individual respondent reported its data 
or on a Customs entered value basis. If we assess on the basis of 
Customs entered value, the rates will be assessed as a percentage of 
the total entered value of the imported subject merchandise. Therefore, 
Customs will collect the proper amount of antidumping duties owed 
regardless of whether the respondent reported units in bunches or 
stems.
    Comment 22: Asocolflores, the Florex Group, the Claveles 
Colombianos Group, the Santana Flowers Group, and the Floraterra Group 
argue that applying a peso-denominated short-term borrowing rate to 
sales made in U.S. dollars is contrary to current Department policy, 
economic and commercial reality, and the law as established in LMI-La 
Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 455, 460-61 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (LMI). Citing recent cases such as Roses and Brass 
Sheet and Strip from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 38542, these respondents state that 
Department policy mandates use of a U.S. dollar interest rate to 
calculate imputed credit on U.S. sales even in cases where a respondent 
has no borrowings. Respondents also argue that, in LMI, the court 
reversed the Department's decision to apply a higher home market 
borrowing rate to sales denominated in U.S. dollars and directed the 
Department to recalculate imputed credit expenses using a U.S. dollar 
rate under the rationale that a borrower will look for the lowest 
possible rate across international borders. Respondents conclude that 
the only way to measure the cost of financing sales made in U.S. 
dollars is by applying a dollar interest rate to the dollar price. 
Respondents recommend that the Department use the U.S. prime rate to 
calculate credit expenses for firms with no actual U.S. dollar 
borrowings.
    The FTC states in its rebuttal brief that respondents argued in the 
fourth review that, as a result of the steady devaluation of the 
Colombian peso against the U.S. dollar, it is cheaper to borrow pesos 
in Colombia than it is to borrow dollars. The FTC asserts that this 
seems to refute respondents' claim in these three reviews that peso 
borrowings to finance dollar debt is contrary to economic reality. The 
FTC also indicates that LMI does not apply because, in that case, the 
foreign producer had actually obtained dollar-denominated loans and 
could be expected to use such financing with respect to its U.S. sales. 
The FTC points out that LMI did not hold that, where a company had 
actual borrowings in a particular currency, that rate should be 
rejected in favor of an estimate of the rate that would have been 
obtained if the company obtained dollar-denominated loans. The FTC 
argues that the currency in which a sale takes place does not 
necessarily have any relationship to the borrowing rate faced by a 
grower, and that the Department must derive the appropriate interest 
rate from the firm's actual borrowing experience. Finally, the FTC 
concludes that not all respondents would be able to obtain dollar-
denominated financing and that the Department lacks authority to 
estimate a dollar rate where the record contains evidence of the actual 
costs.
    Department's Position: Consistent with our practice in the Fourth 
Review and in the preliminary results of these reviews, we used U.S. 
dollar borrowing rates to impute U.S. credit expenses where the 
respondent or a U.S. related party had U.S. dollar short-term 
borrowings. However, where a respondent (or its U.S. related party) had 
no dollar borrowings and financed its working capital through Colombian 
peso borrowings, we calculated U.S. imputed credit expenses using the 
firm's actual peso-denominated short-term borrowing rate, and adjusted 
this rate to reflect the appreciation of the dollar against the peso. 
We did this by subtracting the rate of appreciation of the dollar 
against the peso during each POR from the peso-denominated short-term 
borrowing rate reported by the firm. Only where no short-term 
borrowings were reported in either currency did we use the U.S. prime 
rate during each POR.
    Although we recognize that our current decision represents a change 
from our recent practice, we disagree with respondents that our 
decision to use peso-denominated short-term borrowing rates, adjusted 
for currency fluctuations, is contrary to commercial reality and the 
law as established in LMI. In LMI, the CAFC stated that the cost of 
credit ``must be imputed on the basis of usual and reasonable 
commercial behavior.'' LMI-La Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United 
States, 912 F.2d 455, 461 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because the respondent in 
LMI provided

[[Page 42849]]

evidence that it had obtained dollar-denominated loans during the 
period of investigation, and because the dollar rate was lower than the 
corresponding lira rate, the CAFC held that the Department should have 
used the lower dollar rate for purposes of calculating imputed credit. 
However, in this case, many of the respondents did not have U.S. 
dollar-denominated loans.
    After LMI, during the LTFV investigations involving certain carbon 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings, the Department proposed a new policy for 
selecting interest rates to be used in imputed credit calculations. See 
Memorandum from Program Manager to the File (August 8, 1996), attaching 
a September 6, 1994, Memorandum from the Director of the Office of 
Investigations to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations 
(hereinafter referred to as ``the 1994 Memorandum''). The 1994 
Memorandum suggests that, in situations where the respondent has no 
short-term borrowings in the currency of the transaction, the 
Department can: (1) Accept ``external'' information about the cost of 
borrowing in the relevant currency; or (2) adjust for the application 
of a single, observed interest rate to both home market and U.S. sales, 
taking into account exchange rate fluctuations between the two 
currencies. The 1994 Memorandum gave preference to the first option; 
however, it acknowledged the acceptability of using borrowing rates 
incurred in a different currency from that of the transaction, if the 
rates are adjusted for exchange rate fluctuations.
    The 1994 Memorandum makes clear that the practice of using 
unadjusted home market currency borrowing rates to impute U.S. credit 
expenses is not acceptable because it does not account for fluctuations 
in exchange rates over time. This reasoning was further articulated in 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Austria, 60 FR 33551, 33555 (June 28, 1995) (OCTG). 
In OCTG the Department stated,

    A company selling in a given currency (such as sales denominated 
in dollars) is effectively lending to its purchasers in the currency 
in which its receivables are denominated (in this case, in dollars) 
for the period from shipment of its goods until the date it receives 
payment from its purchaser. Thus, when sales are made in, and future 
payments are expected in, a given currency, the measure of the 
company's extension of credit would be based on an interest rate 
tied to the currency in which its receivables are denominated. Only 
then does establishing a measure of imputed credit recognize both 
the time value of money and the effect of currency fluctuations on 
repatriating revenue.

    The new policy described in the 1994 Memorandum was most recently 
implemented in Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Australia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 14049, 14054 (March 29, 1996) (Steel). In Steel, the 
Department stated,

    When a respondent has no U.S. borrowings, it is no longer the 
Department's practice to substitute home market interest rates when 
calculating U.S. credit expense and inventory carrying costs. 
Rather, the Department will now match the interest rate used for 
credit expenses to the currency in which the sales are denominated. 
* * * Where there is no borrowing in a particular currency, the 
Department may use external information about the cost of borrowing 
in that currency. * * * In the absence of U.S. dollar borrowings, we 
need to arrive at a reasonable surrogate for imputing U.S. credit 
expense. There are many and varied factors that determine at what 
rate a firm can borrow funds, such as the size of the firm, its 
creditworthiness, and its relationship with the lending bank.

(Emphasis added.) See also Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Sweden, 61 FR 15772, 15780 (April 9, 1996).
    We note that Steel does not state that, in the absence of U.S. 
dollar-denominated loans, the Department will impute credit expenses 
based on ``external information.'' Rather, Steel states that the 
Department will use a reasonable surrogate for imputing U.S. credit 
expenses. Respondents' actual peso-denominated short-term borrowing 
rates, adjusted for the rate of appreciation of the dollar against the 
peso, are reasonable surrogates for U.S. dollar short-term borrowing 
rates. Such rates are reasonable because the cost of extending credit 
to customers can be measured by a company's actual short-term borrowing 
experience. Companies often take out short-term loans to fund business 
operations in anticipation of receiving revenue, especially small 
flower growers who sell on a consignment basis. Therefore, if a flower 
grower's operations are paid for in pesos, it is reasonable to use the 
company's actual peso-denominated short-term borrowing rate to measure 
the opportunity cost of extending credit to customers, if that rate is 
adjusted for fluctuations in the peso/dollar exchange rate to take into 
account ``the effect of currency fluctuations on repatriating revenue'' 
noted in OCTG.
    We recognize that in the recent Steel decisions, issued in March 
and April of this year, we used average short-term lending rates 
calculated by the Federal Reserve as surrogates for actual U.S. dollar 
borrowing rates. However, we have decided not to reopen the record at 
this late stage in order to collect Federal Reserve borrowing rates and 
solicit comments on their use, given that: (1) The adjusted home market 
interest rates that we have used are reasonable surrogates for imputing 
U.S. credit expenses; (2) several hundred recalculations would be 
required in order to impute credit expenses on a different basis; and 
(3) further delays in issuing these final results would be caused by 
reopening the record and recalculating this adjustment. See Tapered 
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 22369 
(June 1, 1990) (Comment 27).
    Finally, as stated by the FTC, we note that, during the fourth 
review, respondents did not contend that the use of peso-denominated 
short-term borrowing rates (adjusted for exchange rate fluctuations) 
was inappropriate for respondents with no U.S. dollar borrowings. 
Instead, respondents implied that adjusted peso-denominated short-term 
borrowing rates did reflect economic reality, arguing that borrowing 
pesos in Colombia was cheaper than borrowing U.S. dollars, even when 
financing dollar debt. In the fourth review, respondents contended only 
that we should adjust the peso-denominated short-term borrowing rates 
for devaluation of the peso against the dollar (i.e., currency 
fluctuation), and we made this adjustment. During the fourth review 
period, the dollar appreciated against the peso at a high rate. This 
resulted in a large downward adjustment to the peso-denominated short-
term borrowing rates, and, therefore, a low U.S. imputed credit 
calculation. However, during the current reviews, the rate of 
appreciation of the dollar against the peso was not as significant, 
and, therefore, the offsets to the peso-denominated short-term 
borrowing rates are smaller. Respondents now object to the use of peso-
denominated short-term borrowing rates, arguing that they do not 
reflect ``economic reality.'' However, it would be inappropriate for 
the Department to change its practice in these reviews merely because 
the lower rate of appreciation of the dollar against the peso would 
result in less favorable adjustments for respondents.
    Comment 23: Asocolflores contends that the Department's methodology 
for adjusting the peso borrowing rates used to calculate U.S. imputed 
credit expenses is incorrect because it

[[Page 42850]]

measures the effective peso borrowing rate, e.g., the cost of borrowing 
pesos to finance the equivalent in pesos of dollars. Asocolflores 
contends that, if the Department continues to use an adjusted peso 
borrowing rate to calculate U.S. imputed credit expenses, it should use 
a methodology that measures the equivalent dollar borrowing rate, e.g., 
the effective cost of lending dollars when the original borrowing is in 
pesos.
    The FTC contends that the Department's methodology for adjusting 
the peso borrowing rates is correct, and that the Department should 
reject respondents' proposed calculation methodology.
    Departments Position: To account for fluctuations in the peso/
dollar exchange rate, and because U.S. imputed credit expenses must be 
quantified in dollars so that they may be deducted from USP, we 
adjusted peso borrowing rates for the devaluation of the peso against 
the dollar before we used those rates to calculate U.S. imputed credit 
expenses. Our methodology measures respondents' borrowing costs in real 
terms. As explained in our response to Comment 22 above, this 
methodology is reasonable. Therefore, we have not used Asocolflores' 
proposed methodology.
    Comment 24: Asocolflores argues that the Department should use 
annually-averaged U.S. prices in its margin analysis. It argues that, 
due to (1) The inability to control production in the short-term, (2) 
the highly perishable nature of the product and the inability to store 
production, and (3) the extreme seasonality of demand and prices, the 
only way to appropriately measure U.S. prices is by using annually-
averaged U.S. prices.
    The FTC responds that the Department has based U.S. prices on 
monthly averages consistently throughout this proceeding and that there 
are no new facts that compel the Department to do otherwise.
    Department's Position: Section 777A of the Act allows the 
Department to ``use averaging or generally accepted sampling techniques 
whenever a significant volume of sales is involved or a significant 
number of adjustments to prices is required.'' Further, the Act states 
that the ``authority to select appropriate samples and averages shall 
rest exclusively with the administering authority; but such samples and 
averages shall be representative of the transactions under 
investigation.'' See also 19 CFR 353.59(b) (1994).
    In prior reviews and the investigation of Colombian flowers, we 
have exercised our authority under section 777A by using monthly U.S. 
averages to calculate USP. See, e.g., Second Review at 20495. This use 
of monthly averaging has been upheld by the CIT. See, e.g., Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 1492, 1499-1501 (CIT 
1991).
    For the current reviews of Colombian flowers, we have continued to 
use monthly averages as this averaging period compensates for the 
perishability of the subject merchandise. We reject respondents' 
invitation to engage in annual U.S. averaging because, as in prior 
reviews, annual averaging creates the potential for masking dumped 
sales (i.e., annual averaging would allow exporters to dump for entire 
months when demand is sluggish, so long as they recoup their losses 
during months of high demand). Therefore, we have continued our 
practice of using monthly average U.S. prices in our margin analyses.
    Comment 25: HOSA Ltda. and Asocolflores argue that costs should be 
allocated over all flowers sold, including ``national quality'' 
flowers. Their arguments are based on two developments. First, both 
claim that national quality flowers are now sold in the United States 
and that this development is supported by the Department's verification 
report dealing with HOSA's sales activities. Because national quality 
flowers are subject to the order, respondents argue, such flowers 
cannot have a cost of production of zero. Second, both cite the 1990 
decision of the CAFC in IPSCO, Inc. v. United States, 965 F.2d 1056 
(IPSCO), in support of their argument that the Department can no longer 
treat national quality flowers as by-products with no cost. Respondents 
argue that the only difference between national and export quality 
flowers is quality and thus value. Respondents further argue that IPSCO 
held that the Department may only treat as a by-product products which 
are distinct in kind from the primary product subject to investigation 
and that lower quality grades of the same product, used for the same 
purposes as the primary product and produced by the same process, may 
not be treated as a by-product.
    The FTC argues that national quality flowers are not co-products 
and that the test to determine whether a product should be treated as a 
co-product or by-product is (1) Whether the value of the product is 
lower in relation to the principal product, and (2) whether the 
product's production is only incidental to the production of the main 
product. The FTC concludes that, since no flower producer intends to 
produce lesser quality flowers, national quality flowers are correctly 
treated as by-products. The FTC also argues that HOSA's and 
Asocolflores' reliance on IPSCO is misplaced. In the FTC's view, the 
CAFC did not address the issue of whether the value difference between 
the products necessitated by-product treatment.
    Department's Position: We disagree with HOSA. One of the factors 
the Department uses to assess the proper accounting treatment of 
jointly-produced products is a comparison of 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 by-product is its 
relatively minor sales value in comparison to that of the major product 
or products produced. Our general practice in cases involving 
agricultural goods has been to treat ``reject'' products as by-products 
and to offset the total cost of production with revenues earned from 
the sale of any such ``reject'' products. We then allocate the 
cultivation costs, net of any recovery from ``rejects,'' over the 
quantity of non-reject products actually sold. See, e.g., Roses; Roses 
from Ecuador; 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 from Canada, 48 FR 51673 (November 10, 
1983); Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 49 FR 30767 (August 1, 1984).
    In accordance with our practice in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation and subsequent reviews of this case, fresh cut flowers 
have been classified as either export-quality (high quality) or as 
culls (low quality or reject). Our practice was upheld by the CIT in 
Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 
1114, 1125-26 (CIT 1989). The CIT 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 by-
product 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 by-product status.'' The CIT further noted that ``[c]ull 
value, if determinable, should be deducted from cost of production and 
production costs should not be allocated to culls.''
    However, in these reviews, respondents have characterized culls as 
``national'' or ``second'' quality flowers and have argued that, 
because HOSA exported some ``second-quality'' flowers, they cannot be 
treated as by-products. We agree with respondents that any flowers sold 
to the United

[[Page 42851]]

States should not be treated as by-products, and, for our preliminary 
results of review, we did in fact allocate costs to all export-quality 
flowers HOSA produced during the PORs. However, we disagree that the 
HOSA verification report demonstrates that cull flowers were sold to 
the United States. At verification, HOSA explained that it sold a small 
quantity of flowers that it, HOSA, had graded as ``second quality'' to 
the United States and only during periods of peak demand (``HOSA stated 
that * * * some second-quality flowers were even sold in the United 
States in periods of high demand,'' HOSA Group Verification Report 
(January 13, 1995), at 10). In addition, we found at verification that 
HOSA generally only sold export-quality flowers in the home market when 
demand in the United States was too low to justify shipping the flowers 
to the United States.
    In HOSA's original section D response, HOSA reported that it has 
two grades: top quality, which meet all of a number of standards, and 
culls, which do not meet all of the standards enumerated in the 
response. See HOSA Group response to sections C and D dated July 22, 
1994 at 21. Later, HOSA claimed that it did not sell culls, but rather 
that it sold second quality flowers in the home market. At 
verification, HOSA presented a list of standards that applied to all 
``first quality'' flowers and explained that ``second quality'' flowers 
were those flowers that did not meet all of the standards necessary for 
a flower to be graded as ``first quality.'' See HOSA Group Verification 
Report (January 13, 1995) at 9-11. This definition of ``second 
quality'' flowers matches the definition of cull flowers HOSA 
originally reported. Therefore, we find no reason to treat what HOSA 
claims to be ``second quality'' flowers sold in the home market any 
differently than we have treated culls in these reviews.
    We find that HOSA's internal grading system is not dispositive as 
to whether a cull is a by-product. While HOSA claims to have sold some 
``second-quality'' flowers in the United States, this does not mean 
that HOSA did not produce and sell culls in Colombia. If a flower is to 
be exported it must meet the minimum grade requirements of the U.S. 
market, whereas a cull is any flower that does not meet those 
requirements. Such flowers are not intended to be produced and are not 
worth exporting. We use the term ``culls'' as an accounting concept in 
distinguishing which individual products may reasonably carry costs, 
but this is not necessarily a grading concept. Culls are not simply a 
low grade of flowers, but are unintentionally and unavoidably produced 
by-products that have minimal value. The record shows that the 
``second-quality'' flowers sold by HOSA in the home market had very low 
value: ``HOSA's home market prices for `second-quality' flowers were, 
on average, approximately 40% of home market prices'' for first quality 
(i.e., indisputably export-quality) flowers, and ``both grades sold in 
the home market were, on average, below cost.'' See HOSA Group 
Verification Report (January 13, 1995) at 9-11. Contrary to HOSA's 
assertions, the fact that ``second-quality'' flowers sold in the home 
market were sold at prices well below the costs HOSA attributes to the 
production of these flowers suggests that there is not a genuine 
domestic market for ``second-quality'' flowers which HOSA claims it 
intends to produce. Furthermore, HOSA's claims that a few ``second-
quality'' flowers were sold in the United States, and then only during 
peak periods of demand, leads us to conclude that the vast majority of 
``second-quality'' flowers did not meet the minimum standards for sale 
in the United States, and that the vast majority of ``second-quality'' 
flowers were therefore culls.
    We conclude that HOSA's domestic market is no different from the 
market enjoyed by other Colombian flower producers. In other words, 
this market exists to the extent that HOSA, like many other Colombian 
flower producers, sells flowers it cannot export as surplus at the farm 
gate for whatever price it can get for the flowers.
    Nevertheless, we conducted a further test of our treatment of cull 
flowers as by-products. We examined the total national- and export-
quality sales of the ten largest producers in these reviews in order to 
determine whether national-quality flower sales had significant value. 
Six of these firms had cull, or national, flower sales. We have found 
that total and average per-unit revenues generated from the sale of 
cull flowers were small (in most cases negligible) compared to total 
revenues generated from the sale of subject merchandise (including 
culls) (see Memorandum to Holly Kuga from Laurie Parkhill (July 30, 
1996)). This pattern is consistent with the CIT's standard that by-
products are sold at a very low value.
    We find no evidence to support respondent's claim that there is 
little difference in grade between export-quality and national-quality 
flowers. We did find at verification that the prices of ``second-
quality'' flowers sold in the home market were considerably less than 
the prices of ``first-quality'' flowers sold in the home market. No 
other respondents claimed that cull flowers were in any way comparable 
to export-quality flowers. This factual situation suggests that the 
grades are not comparable, and that there is a significant difference 
in grade between export-quality and national-quality flowers.
    We disagree with respondents' argument that the inclusion of cull 
flowers in the class or kind of merchandise compels us, under the IPSCO 
decision, to assign cost to culls. A decision that a particular product 
is, or is not, within the scope of a proceeding does not dictate, nor 
necessarily have any relation to, the selection of the particular cost 
accounting methodology that must be applied in the determination of CV. 
We do not read the CAFC's decision in IPSCO as standing for the 
proposition that, in all circumstances, a by-product, 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 
position in this regard has been well-established in previous decisions 
and explicitly upheld by the CIT.
    We have had an established practice since the less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation of treating cull flowers as by-products. Neither 
respondents nor petitioner in this proceeding have voiced any concern 
regarding this practice prior to these reviews. Now, HOSA and 
Asocolflores claim that the factual situation has changed such that we 
must significantly alter our treatment of cull, or national-quality, 
flowers. In other words, these respondents claim that (1) National-
quality flowers are not by-products but co-products, (2) there is a 
viable market for such (national-quality) flowers in the home market, 
and (3) there is little difference in grade between export-quality and 
national-quality flowers. The burden is on HOSA and Asocolflores to 
demonstrate that these factual situations exist. Respondents submitted 
no evidence that demonstrated these three points. In fact, for each 
point raised by respondents, record evidence supports a different 
conclusion. The only change that we found appears to be HOSA's internal 
grading system. Therefore, we find that we have no grounds to warrant a 
change in our established practice.

Company-Specific Issues Raised by Asocolflores

    Comment 26: Asocolflores asserts that the Department erred in 
collapsing eight companies into the Queen's Flowers Group. Asocolflores 
notes that the Department's August 3, 1995

[[Page 42852]]

memorandum predicates its collapsing test by examining the relationship 
between the Queen's Flowers Group companies under section 771(13) of 
the Act. Respondents assert that the Department established precedents 
for this analysis in Roses from Ecuador at 7040 and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances Determination: Disposable Pocket Lighters From 
Thailand, 60 FR 14263, 14268 (March 16, 1995) (Lighters). However, 
Asocolflores distinguishes Roses from Ecuador and Lighters from the 
instant case. Whereas the former cases involved collapsing the sales in 
the United States of related parties, in the instant case, Asocolflores 
notes, the Department would collapse both sales and constructed value 
data. As such, Asocolflores argues that both the related party 
definitions of section 771(13) and section 773(e)(4) need be satisfied 
before the Department may apply its collapsing analysis.
    Asocolflores contends that Congress has clearly delineated the 
circumstances under which the Department may disregard transactions 
between companies. Respondents assert that the Department has no 
authority to look past the transfer price and use the seller's cost of 
production unless the relationship between buyer and seller meet the 
criteria set forth in section 773(e)(4). Asocolflores argues that the 
Department cannot circumvent Congress' intent and the express 
requirements of the statute by applying a different related party test.
    Asocolflores agrees that, under 773b(e)(4), a few of the companies 
are related. Asocolflores also agrees that some of the companies are 
related under 771(13). However, Asocolflores contends that not all are 
related to each other, nor can the Department use the transitive 
principle to relate two parties simply because they are both related to 
a third party. Asocolflores contends that, in its analysis of the two 
sub-groups within the Queen's Flowers Group, the Department ignores the 
fact that there are several pairings of companies which do not meet the 
statutory criteria. Asocolflores argues that the Department may not 
collapse companies that are not related.
    Asocolflores asserts that, notwithstanding the Department's failure 
to realize the threshold to its collapsing analysis has not been met, 
the Department erred in its conclusions for the five points of the 
collapsing test. Asocolflores agrees that some of the companies have 
common board members, but that this criterion is not satisfied for all 
companies.
    According to Asocolflores, the Department's conclusion that 
shifting of production is possible if companies produce the same 
merchandise renders the test meaningless. Asocolflores argues that 
where companies produce the same merchandise, shifting of production is 
not possible unless the flower plant itself is uprooted and transferred 
to another location. In addition, respondents state that several of the 
firms do not produce the same or even subject merchandise.
    Asocolflores goes on to state that, in analyzing whether the 
companies operate as separate and distinct entities, the Department 
ignored the fact that each company is run by its own independent 
manager and does not assist the other companies through loans or 
otherwise. Instead, Asocolflores asserts the Department focuses on 
sales of flowers between some of the companies. However, Asocolflores 
contends that, if the sales between companies were arm's-length 
transactions, then the Department must conclude that the companies 
operate as separate and distinct entities under section 773(e)(2). 
Moreover, Asocolflores notes that it is a common industry practice for 
flower companies to buy or sell small quantities of flowers to help 
fill an order. As an example, Asocolflores refers to Agroindustrial del 
RioFrio, which is a bouquet maker. As such, Asocolflores states, it 
must purchase a variety of flowers from other producers. Yet, according 
to Asocolflores, the intercompany transactions are few and far between 
and occur at prices above their cost of production, and all the 
purchased flowers were then exported to third countries, not the United 
States. Asocolflores maintains that the sales to the commonly owned 
importers are irrelevant to the Department's analysis of this 
criterion. Moreover, Asocolflores contends, the importers have 
developed an inventory system that precludes the potential for price 
manipulation. Asocolflores argues that the existence of common board 
members cannot be sufficient to prove that two respondents actually 
share marketing and sales information. Because interlocking boards of 
directors is a separate factor, it should not overlap with the 
Department's consideration of whether two respondent's share marketing 
and sales information.
    Asocolflores points to the companies' statements that they do not 
share sales or marketing information or offices. Asocolflores maintains 
that, lacking evidence to the contrary, these statements preclude the 
Department from concluding otherwise. Asocolflores maintains that, 
although some of the companies in the group rent office space in a 
building that is owned by some of the companies in the group, neither 
the costs nor the spaces are shared, and each firm operates its own 
phone line.
    Asocolflores disputes the Department's conclusions regarding the 
fact that there are intercompany transactions; in respondents' opinion 
this does not indicate that the companies are involved in each other's 
pricing and production decisions. Asocolflores also disagrees with the 
Department's conclusion that, because virtually all of the production 
of flowers is sold by the related importers, the companies are linked 
to one another.
    In sum, Asocolflores maintains that, by collapsing the companies' 
cost and sales data, the Department achieves the very effect that it 
intends to avoid: the possibility of manipulation. Although the 
companies do not object to being collapsed per se (notwithstanding 
their belief that the Department has no legal or statutory authority to 
collapse any or all of the 20 companies), they take issue with the 
collapsing analysis because they fear that the Department may use the 
results of such analysis in determining whether the companies responded 
completely to the questionnaire.
    The FTC maintains that Asocolflores is incorrect in asserting that 
section 771(13) is limited to identifying when an exporter and an 
importer are related. The FTC states that section 771(13) also defines 
relationships when the merchandise is sold to the United States ``by or 
for account of the exporter'' (19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.41(c)) or when the 
merchandise is sold in the home market to or through a related party 
(19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.45). In contrast, the FTC asserts, the definition 
in section 773(e)(4) only applies to producers who purchase major 
inputs from related suppliers.
    Given the nature of the flower industry and the lack of markings 
identifying the producer, the FTC argues that the Department's concerns 
that a producer with a high margin may route its flowers through a 
related producer with a low margin should be heightened. The FTC 
believes that, considering this environment, coupled with the various 
transactions and relationships between the members of the Queen's 
Flowers Group, the Department appropriately collapsed the Group into a 
single entity.
    Asocolflores rebuts that the FTC has not identified where in the 
statute or the questionnaire a company can look to determine which 
definition of related party the Department will apply for the purpose 
of collapsing. Moreover,

[[Page 42853]]

Asocolflores reiterates its assertion that 771(13) is limited to 
defining the relationship between the importer and the exporter, not 
between two exporters. Finally, Asocolflores contends that the FTC 
fails to point to record evidence that all of the companies are related 
under the statutory tests.
    The FTC rebuts that 19 CFR 353.41(c) and 353.45 clearly direct the 
Department to section 771(13), while section 773(e)(4) applies only to 
the reporting of certain constructed value data. Moreover, petitioner 
asserts, it is the Department that determines whether to collapse 
related parties.
    Department's Position: For these final reviews, we have continued 
to collapse the original eight members of the ``Queen's Flowers 
Group.'' Additionally, for the other twelve companies under 
consideration, we have determined that they should be collapsed with 
the original eight members of the Queen's Flowers Group.
    As we have noted elsewhere, ``[i]t is the Department's long- 
standing practice to calculate a separate dumping margin for each 
manufacturer or exporter investigated.'' Final Determinations of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 58 FR 37154, 37159 
(July 9, 1993) (Japanese Steel). Because the Department calculates 
margins on a company-by-company basis, it must ensure that it reviews 
the entire producer or reseller, not merely a part of it. The 
Department reviews the entire entity due to its concerns regarding 
price and cost manipulation. Because of this concern, the Department 
examines the question of whether reviewed companies ``constitute 
separate manufacturers or exporters for purposes of the dumping law.'' 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain Granite 
Products from Spain, 53 FR 24335, 24337 (June 28, 1988). Where there is 
evidence indicating a significant potential for the manipulation of 
price and production, the Department will ``collapse'' related 
companies; that is, the Department will treat the companies as one 
entity for purposes of calculating the dumping margin. See Nihon Cement 
Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 93-80 (CIT May 25, 1993).
    To determine whether companies should be collapsed, the Department 
makes three inquiries. First, the Department examines whether the 
companies in question are related within the meaning of section 771(13) 
of the Act. See Lighters From Thailand at 14268 (declining to collapse 
non-related companies). Second, the Department examines whether the 
companies in question have similar production facilities, such that 
retooling would not be required to shift production from one company to 
another. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 42511, 42512 
(Aug. 16, 1995) (Steel from Canada). Third, the Department examines 
whether there exists other evidence indicating a significant potential 
for the manipulation of price or production. The types of factors the 
Department examines include: (1) The level of common ownership; (2) the 
existence of interlocking officers or directors (e.g., whether 
managerial employees or board members of one company sit on the board 
of directors of the other related parties); and (3) the existence of 
intertwined operations. ``The Department need not show all of these 
factors exist in order to collapse related entities, but only that the 
companies are sufficiently related to create the possibility of price 
manipulation.'' Japanese Steel.
    In examining the questionnaire responses for several of the 
companies involved in these administrative reviews, we noticed the 
existence of numerous interrelationships (via ownership and otherwise). 
We asked for additional information concerning these relationships and, 
as a result, have concluded that these companies should be collapsed.
    First, the companies within the Queen's Flowers Group are related 
to each other within the meaning of section 771(13) of the Act. See 
Memoranda From Michael F. Panfeld to Holly A. Kuga, dated August 3, 
1995 and February 1, 1996. Second, these companies have similar 
production facilities. All of these companies produce flowers in a 
similar manner and, thus, the companies would not need to engage in 
retooling to shift production. Third, other proprietary evidence 
indicates that there is a significant potential for price or cost 
manipulation among these companies. In general, this additional 
evidence consists of: (1) The existence of interlocking managers, 
officers and directors; (2) the shipment of subject merchandise through 
common importers in the United States; (3) use of common office space 
and shared costs; and (4) intercompany transactions. See Memorandum 
from Michael F. Panfeld to File dated November 17, 1994, and Memorandum 
from Michael F. Panfeld to Holly A. Kuga dated February 1, 1996.
    We disagree with Asocolflores' assertion that we applied the wrong 
statutory definition of related party in our analysis. Section 
773(e)(4) pertains solely to determining the cost of inputs purchased 
from related parties in calculating constructed value. The definition 
of ``related party'' found in this provision is used for the purpose of 
disregarding certain related party transactions for inputs that are not 
at arm's length (773(e)(2)) and for determining whether a major input 
purchased from a related party was sold below cost (773(e)(3)). There 
is no explicit provision in the Act regarding whether companies should 
be considered as separate or as a single enterprise for margin 
calculation purposes. See Roses from Ecuador at 7040. However, it is 
the Department's practice to use section 771(13) in its collapsing 
analysis. This use of 771(13) is consistent with how the Department 
defines a related party for purposes of determining whether related 
party sales in the home market will be used for purposes of calculating 
FMV. See 19 CFR 353.45(a) (1994).
    Further, contrary to Asocolflores' argument, the Department uses 
section 771(13) for purposes of collapsing in all cases, regardless of 
whether constructed value forms the basis of FMV. Thus, in both Roses 
from Ecuador and Lighters, the issue before the Department was not 
merely whether to collapse sales in the United States for the companies 
in question. Rather, the issue was whether to collapse the companies 
and treat them as one entity for all margin calculation purposes.
    Asocolflores argues that some of the eight companies (as well as 
the additional twelve companies which the Department collapsed into the 
Queen's Flowers Group) have no common board members and, as such, the 
interlocking boards criterion was not satisfied. However, in examining 
this factor, we are looking at the degree of interlocking boards, not 
the existence of fully- integrated boards. As with many of the 
collapsing factors we consider, we examine the degree to which the 
companies are intertwined with each other. For the Queen's Flowers 
Group, we conclude that the number of interlocking boards, officers and 
managers is such that this factor supports a finding that the companies 
should be treated as a single entity.
    Our finding that shifting of production could occur in the Queen's 
Flowers Group does not, as suggested by Asocolflores, mean that 
companies will ``dig up the plant and move it to another

[[Page 42854]]

farm.'' Rather, our concerns over shifting production refer to a longer 
period of time; thus, if Company A receives a lower margin than Company 
B, we are concerned that Company A would increase production of new 
flowers to take advantage of a lower margin while Company B would, over 
time, reduce production due to its higher margin. Alternatively, more 
of the production of Company A could be shifted to the U.S. market.
    We agree that sales to a common importer do not indicate an 
intercompany transfer, per se. However, for proprietary reasons, we 
find that these sales indicate cooperation and intertwined operations 
between the companies in question. See Memorandum from Michael F. 
Panfeld to Holly Kuga dated February 1, 1996.
    We also find that shared office space is an appropriate factor to 
consider in our analysis. While the sharing of office space does not, 
by itself, indicate that collapsing is appropriate, it does indicate 
cooperation and intertwined operations. Moreover, in addition to 
sharing facilities, some of the firms also shared costs associated with 
these facilities and reported these shared costs in their constructed 
value data. See Memorandum from Michael F. Panfeld to Holly A. Kuga 
dated February 1, 1996. Thus, it weighs in favor of a collapsing 
determination.
    Finally, we agree with Asocolflores that we should not overlap 
factors in our collapsing analysis (i.e., common board members and 
sharing of sales and marketing information). Notwithstanding this 
factor, our analysis of this criterion remains unchanged due to the 
reasons outlined in the two preceding paragraphs. Therefore, our 
conclusion to collapse these firms remains unchanged.
    Our determination whether to collapse is based on the totality of 
the circumstances. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel at 42512. We 
do not use bright-line tests in making this finding. Rather, we weigh 
the evidence before us to discern whether the companies are, in fact, 
separate entities or whether they are sufficiently intertwined as to 
properly be treated as a single enterprise to prevent evasion of the 
antidumping order via price or cost manipulation. Here, we find that 
such potential for manipulation exists for the group of 20 companies in 
the Queen's Flowers Group. Therefore, we have collapsed these companies 
and treated them as one entity for purposes of these final results.
    Comment 27: Asocolflores asserts that the Department erroneously 
assigned an uncooperative BIA rate to eight companies in the Queen's 
Flowers Group. Asocolflores refers to its comments submitted on July 
26, 1995 rebutting the 23 deficiencies outlined in the Department's 
preliminary analysis memo of December 5, 1994. Asocolflores asserts 
that those discrepancies fall into three broad categories: (1) Failures 
to provide factual information, (2) failures to identify related party 
transactions, and (3) failures to identify certain companies as related 
parties. Asocolflores maintains that, if the Department reexamines its 
analysis in light of the comments raised in its July 26, 1995 
submission, it will find that virtually no discrepancies exist and all 
factual information is now on the record. Furthermore, Asocolflores 
contends that the Department has improperly scrutinized the 
relationships among the firms within the meaning of section 771(13). 
Instead, Asocolflores contends, the Department should apply section 
773(e)(4). If the Department continues to assign the eight companies a 
BIA margin, Asocolflores contends that there is no basis for assigning 
a BIA margin to the 12 additional companies believed to have ``strong 
ties'' to the Queen's Flowers Group, maintaining that the Department 
may only assign a BIA margin to firms that fail to supply requested 
information. Asocolflores argues that the 12 companies fully responded 
to the questionnaires. Moreover, Asocolflores contends, several of the 
respondents either did not produce, export, buy, or sell subject 
merchandise or were not in existence during the PORs.
    The FTC argues that the Department properly concluded that the 
Queen's Flowers Group significantly impeded its investigation. The FTC 
states that the Department's questionnaire was clear in its request to 
identify related parties. To the extent that the Queen's group failed 
to do so, the FTC contends, the group impeded the investigation. The 
FTC argues that respondents are presumed to have knowledge of 
Departmental practice and U.S. antidumping law, and the Department's 
questionnaire provided adequate guidance. The FTC also asserts that, to 
the extent that respondents were uncertain in their interpretation of 
the questionnaire, they had access to legal counsel and Department 
analysts. In the FTC's view, the Department attempted to determine the 
exact nature of the interrelationships among the group members through 
multiple deficiency letters, but respondents failed to respond 
appropriately and the Department correctly classified their responses 
as ``uncooperative.'' The FTC cites Allied Signal v. United States, 996 
F.2d 1185, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Chinsung Indus. Co. v. United States, 
705 F. Supp. 598, 600 (CIT 1989), Pulton Chain Co., Inc. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 93-202 (CIT October 18, 1993), and Pistachio Group of 
Ass'n of Food Ind. v. United States, 671 F. Supp. 31, 40 (CIT 1987), as 
support for the Department's application of BIA when the respondent 
deliberately withholds information, attempts to direct the 
investigation itself, or attempts to control the results of an 
investigation by supplying partial information. In this case, the FTC 
states, the Department found that the Queen's Flowers Group refused to 
cooperate or otherwise significantly impeded the investigation and 
correctly rejected the companies' responses, assigning an antidumping 
duty margin based on BIA. The FTC further asserts that Asocolflores is 
also incorrect in its claims that ``there were no transactions in 
Colombia implicating the U.S. price definition.'' The FTC asserts that 
when two parties are related, the knowledge test is irrelevant.
    Asocolflores rebuts that the FTC offers no facts or analysis 
showing that the respondents failed to respond fully to the 
questionnaire, that the respondents should be faulted for not knowing 
which definition of related party to apply, or that all of the firms 
are related under either of the statutory definitions. Asocolflores 
reiterates that 771(13) only applies to the relationship between the 
importer and the exporter, not to the relationship between two 
exporters. Asocolflores argues that there were no sales in Colombia 
that would implicate USP. According to Asocolflores, the sales to 
Agroindustrial del RioFrio were destined for third countries, while, 
for the other transaction at issue, the selling company was not aware 
of the ultimate destination of the product. According to Asocolflores, 
the FTC cites no authority for its proposition that respondents are 
``presumed to be aware of and comply with ITA practice and antidumping 
law.''
    The FTC rebuts that the Department determines whether parties are 
related based on 771(13), and section 773(e)(4) applies only to the 
reporting of constructed value data. In responding to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire, the FTC contends, respondents cannot 
predict on what basis FMV will ultimately be calculated. In the FTC's 
view, the respondents' reporting on the basis of 773(e)(4) was at their 
own peril and the Department was correct in rejecting responses based 
on only one of the related party tests. The FTC asserts that, contrary 
to the

[[Page 42855]]

claims of Asocolflores, all copies of the questionnaire contained the 
same question requiring respondents to identify related parties in 
Section A and, in any case, it was incumbent upon respondents to 
request clarification. Finally, the FTC maintains that, if the 
Department assigns a BIA rate to the original eight members of the 
Queen's Flowers Group, it should also apply this rate to the 12 
additional companies to the extent that they are collapsed into the 
group.
    Department's Position: We have reexamined the record for these 
final results in light of the preceding comments, and have concluded 
that members of the Queen's Flowers Group failed to respond to certain 
questions and to provide certain factual information, improperly 
reported certain cost items and failed to change those items when 
requested to do so, and presented a pattern of insufficient responses, 
misleading information, and contradictory statements.
    Specifically, Flores Canelon failed to distinguish between 
production expenses (which are not amortizable) and pre-production 
expenses (which are amortizable) of all types of cut flowers for 
January and February of 1992. Flores Canelon also failed to distinguish 
between production and pre-production expenses for farm overhead for 
the sixth and the seventh periods. Instead, Canelon improperly 
amortized all of these expenses. In this case, we notified the 
respondent in a supplemental questionnaire that there was a problem 
with its data and that failure to correct the error might result in our 
use of BIA. Flores Canelon made no changes in its data and provided 
only a brief narrative describing the period over which various assets 
were amortized. Flores Canelon referred the Department to attachments 
in its original response for further explanation. However, Flores 
Canelon failed to provide a narrative ``road map'' of these attachments 
in either of its responses, as requested by the questionnaire. Lacking 
a road map of Canelon's methodology, we attempted to determine on our 
own whether Canelon's methodology made sense. However, numerous 
discrepancies prevented this conclusion. See Memorandum from Laurie 
Parkhill to Holly A. Kuga dated June 28, 1996. Flores Canelon's failure 
to properly amortize its expenses is a serious deficiency. Because 
constructed value forms the basis of FMV in this case, incorrect 
amortization of costs will lead to too little or too much cost in 
constructed value and, thus, an inaccurate FMV. A similar deficiency 
has been found in the response of Queen's Flowers de Colombia.
    In addition, we initiated a review in each of the three periods on 
Flores Generales. We received a response from ``Cultivos Generales 
(Flores Generales)'' for the fifth and the sixth review periods 
claiming ``no shipments,'' but no response for the seventh period. As 
such, we have assigned Flores Generales a rate based on BIA for the 
seventh period. While investigating the additional 12 companies in the 
Queen's Flowers Group, we asked Cultivos Generales if it was related to 
``Cultivos Generales (Flores Generales).'' Cultivos Generales stated 
that it was the successor to Flores Generales, and, in effect, simply 
changed the name of the company, keeping all ownership intact. Had we 
known that these two entities were one and the same, we would not have 
sent a supplemental questionnaire to Cultivos Generales, because Flores 
Generales did not respond to our original questionnaire. Therefore, we 
are disregarding Cultivos Generales'' June 13, 1995, and July 28, 1995 
submissions and are assigning it a BIA rate for the seventh POR as a 
successor to Flores Generales.
    Other deficiencies exist that support our use of BIA. However, a 
discussion of these conditions is impossible in a public notice, due to 
their highly proprietary nature. For a discussion of these issues, see 
Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Holly A. Kuga dated June 28, 1996. 
In this memorandum, we reexamine the record in light of the FTC's and 
Asocolflores' comments and have revised our analysis accordingly. We 
concede that certain deficiencies identified in the December 5, 1994 
analysis memorandum are no longer a factor in our analysis and that 
certain other deficiencies have been corrected. However, serious 
deficiencies remain in the responses of the Group and all information 
is not on the record as Asocolflores contends. In addition, new 
deficiencies have been identified. These deficiencies fall into two 
groups: those that we had identified previously in a supplemental 
questionnaire and for which an opportunity to correct the deficiency 
was afforded through supplemental responses, as well as deficiencies 
which we identified in supplemental responses solicited after the 
preliminary results. Most significant of these is that not all U.S. 
sales data and CV data exists on the record. These deficiencies are 
such that we are unable to use the responses of the Group for 
calculating margins. Therefore, for the final results of review, we 
have assigned the Queen's Flowers Group a BIA rate for each POR.
    Moreover, because these deficiencies derive from a pattern of 
unresponsive and insufficient responses, we conclude that the Queen's 
Flowers Group impeded our investigation and consider the group to be 
uncooperative. Therefore, we are assigning the Queen's Flowers Group a 
first-tier BIA in accordance with Allied Signal v. United States, 996 
F.2d 1185, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Chinsung Indus. Co. v. United States, 
705 F. Supp. 598, 600 (CIT 1989), Pulton Chain Co., Inc. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 93-202 (CIT October 18, 1993), and Pistachio Group of 
Ass'n of Food Ind. v. United States, 671 F. Supp. 31, 40 (CIT 1987).
    We agree with the FTC that the BIA rate should be applied to all 20 
respondents. Because the Department relies on respondents to 
voluntarily identify their related parties, failure to do so, after 
repeated attempts to elicit this information, must be seen as impeding 
our investigation. Moreover, post-preliminary cooperation by members of 
the group for which we did not initiate reviews does not override 
previous deficiencies by the initiated members in this regard. In this 
case, we elicited post-preliminary ownership information to allow 
previously uninitiated companies an opportunity to provide evidence 
that they should not be collapsed with the Queen's Flowers Group, 
since, to do otherwise would deny these firms due process. However, 
these firms provided evidence that they were related and intertwined to 
the extent that collapsing was warranted. In addition, they provided 
additional evidence of links among the original eight members. 
Therefore, although these firms cooperated after the preliminary 
results, this cooperation only resulted after we preliminarily found 
the Queen's Flowers Group, as a whole, to be uncooperative and assigned 
it a margin based on first-tier BIA. For these final results, we, 
therefore, are applying the first-tier BIA margin to all entities 
collapsed within the group.
    Comment 28: Asocolflores asserts that the Department lacks a 
factual and a legal basis for collapsing the Santa Helena Group of 
companies and the Florex Group of companies. Asocolflores contends 
that, before the Department can consider collapsing two companies, it 
must first show that they are related companies. Asocolflores maintains 
that, when FMV is based upon constructed value and the Department is 
considering whether to collapse sales as well as costs, then the 
related party definition in section 771(13) and the definition 
contained in 773(e)(4) must be satisfied for parties to be considered 
related. Asocolflores

[[Page 42856]]

maintains that the relationships between these two groups fail to meet 
either test. Asocolflores proposes that the Department establish a 
higher threshold for collapsing related parties in cases where the 
relationships are tenuous at best. Notwithstanding this, Asocolflores 
argues that the Department wrongly concluded that the five criteria 
were satisfied in its collapsing analysis. Asocolflores asserts that 
the record lacks evidence that controverts the two groups' certified 
statements that they operate as separate and independent entities. 
Asocolflores argues that the existence of common board members cannot 
be sufficient to prove that two respondents actually share marketing 
and sales information. Because interlocking boards of directors is a 
separate factor, it should not overlap with the Department's 
consideration of whether two respondent's share marketing and sales 
information. Moreover, Asocolflores asserts the high margins assigned 
to the Santa Helena Group (see the following comment) and weighted into 
the Florex Group's low margins result in a significant deposit rate for 
the Florex Group, which represents a manifest injustice. Finally, 
Asocolflores maintains that, if the Department finds that the two 
groups should remain collapsed in its final results, it should assign 
separate deposit rates for each group because one company in the Santa 
Helena Group no longer has any ties to firms in the Florex group.
    The FTC rebuts that section 773(e)(4) applies when reporting 
constructed value and does not preclude collapsing for purposes of 
calculating a weighted-average margin for which section 771(13) is the 
applicable section of the statute. The FTC contends that all five 
criteria of the collapsing test have been met and, in particular, the 
Department's finding that the respondents produce the same merchandise, 
engaged in intercompany transactions, and have already shifted 
production is sufficient cause for alarm. Moreover, FTC points to the 
fact that the questionnaire responses in these reviews were submitted 
after the Department had concluded that these companies were 
sufficiently related to be collapsed in the Fourth Review. According to 
the FTC, any assumptions the Florex Group made regarding the Santa 
Helena Group were thus made at the Group's own peril. Finally, the FTC 
argues that to assign separate deposit rates for the Santa Helena Group 
and the Florex Group would undermine the purpose of collapsing related 
parties. If the Department considers establishing separate deposit 
rates, the FTC urges the issuance of supplemental questionnaires to 
determine whether any new relationships have formed in the interim.
    Department's Position: For purposes of these final results, we have 
collapsed the Florex Group and the Santa Helena Group. See generally 
our response to comment 26 for the criteria used in this analysis.
    Respondent's claims to the contrary notwithstanding, we find that 
the evidence supports the conclusion that the Florex and Santa Helena 
Groups are intertwined to a degree that warrants treating them as a 
single enterprise. First, we find that the Florex Group and the Santa 
Helena Group are related to each other within the meaning of section 
771(13) of the Act. See Memorandum From Michael F. Panfeld to Holly 
Kuga, dated February 1, 1996. Second, these groups have similar 
production facilities. Both groups produce flowers in a similar manner 
and, thus, the groups would not need to engage in retooling to shift 
production. Third, there exists other proprietary evidence indicating 
that there is a significant potential for price or cost manipulation 
among these groups. In general, this additional evidence consists of: 
(1) The existence of interlocking managers, officers and directors; (2) 
the shipment of subject merchandise through a common importer in the 
United States; and (3) intercompany transactions. See Memoranda to the 
File dated November 15, and November 21, 1994, and the Memorandum from 
Michael F. Panfeld to Holly A. Kuga dated February 1, 1996.
    We agree with Asocolflores that we should not overlap factors in 
our collapsing analysis (i.e., common board members and sharing of 
sales and marketing information). We also agree, after review of 
respondents' comments, that while shifting of production has not yet 
occurred, the potential to shift production still remains. 
Notwithstanding these factors, our analysis of these criteria remains 
unchanged due to the additional reasons outlined in the Memoranda to 
the File dated November 15, and November 21, 1994, and the Memorandum 
from Michael F. Panfeld to Holly A. Kuga dated February 1, 1996.
    Finally, we have determined that the factual information regarding 
the current legal status and ownership of firms in the Santa Helena 
Group were untimely submitted. See 19 CFR 353.31(a)(1)(ii) (1994). We 
have removed this information from the record. As the record before us 
indicates that the Florex Group and the Santa Helena Group should be 
collapsed, we have assigned the collapsed enterprise a combined cash 
deposit rate for future entries.
    Comment 29: Asocolflores asserts that the Department unfairly 
assigned a cooperative BIA rate to the Santa Helena Group, given that 
Santa Helena worked to the best of its ability in responding to the 
questionnaire, it had limited resources and little experience in the 
review process. Furthermore, Asocolflores contends that Santa Helena 
corrected its acknowledged errors in its crop adjustment methodology 
and requests that the Department use the corrected information in its 
final results.
    The FTC argues that, at some point, the Department must close the 
administrative record. In the FTC's view, Santa Helena had an adequate 
opportunity to correct its submission and allowing Santa Helena to 
revise its response after the preliminary results would invite a 
wholesale request by other respondents to correct their responses and 
deny interested parties the opportunity to comment or conduct 
verification of the new data. As support, the FTC cites Olympic 
Adhesives, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d at 1571, Ansaldo Componenti, 
S.p.A. v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 198, 204 (CIT 1986), and Mantex, 
Inc. v. United States, 841 F. Supp. 1290, 1310 (CIT 1993). Finally, the 
FTC notes that Santa Helena had both experienced counsel and experience 
in two previous administrative reviews.
    Asocolflores rebuts that the Department chose to reopen the 
administrative record with its supplemental questionnaire to the Florex 
Group (which the Department had collapsed with the Santa Helena Group). 
Contrary to the FTC's concerns regarding the submission of post-
preliminary corrections, Asocolflores maintains that acceptance of 
Santa Helena's data would not create a general precedent. Asocolflores 
also contends that the Department requested inflationary adjustments 
from all respondents, not just Santa Helena. Finally, Asocolflores 
states that Santa Helena's response was prepared by a new company, 
which did not have previous experience in the review process.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC that Santa Helena's 
submission of corrected data is untimely and have not considered the 
data for these final results. Although supplemental questionnaires were 
issued to certain respondents after the preliminary results, they were 
not issued to companies that were preliminarily

[[Page 42857]]

assigned a BIA margin, such as Santa Helena. Prior to issuance of the 
preliminary results, we notified Santa Helena that its data diskettes 
were being rejected due to several problems in a supplemental 
questionnaire, and we identified a critical flaw: the integrity of 
protected formulas in its diskette had been compromised, which 
indicated tampering with our required format. See letter to Santa 
Helena Group from Division Director dated August 15, 1994.
    With regards to the faulty crop adjustment methodology, we agree 
with the FTC that Santa Helena had ample opportunity to correct its 
data. We note that we notified a large number of respondents that there 
were problems with their crop adjustment methodologies prior to 
issuance of the preliminary results. We assigned a second-tier BIA rate 
to all firms that failed to correct their data or to provide narrative 
explanations, as Santa Helena failed to do. Thus, our treatment of 
Santa Helena was not unfair.
    Finally, we have found that we initiated reviews of a member of the 
Florex Group, S.B. Talee de Colombia (albeit with a minor spelling 
error), it received our questionnaire for the seventh POR, and it 
failed to respond to that questionnaire. Moreover, in comments filed on 
April 12, 1995, Flores de Salitre states that S.B. Talee de Colombia 
did have some U.S. sales during the seventh POR. However, these sales 
were not reported by any member of the Florex group. For this, and the 
aforementioned reasons, we continue to assign the Santa Helena sub-
group (of the Florex Group) a margin based on cooperative BIA.
    Comment 30: Jardines de los Andes argues that it should be 
withdrawn from the preliminary ``all others'' rate since it has been 
revoked under the Flores Colombianas Group.
    Department's Position: We agree that Jardines de los Andes has been 
revoked and that the Department inadvertently assigned it the all 
others rate. See Fourth Review. Therefore, there are no final results 
for this company for these review periods.
    Comment 31: Asocolflores asserts that the Department erred when it 
combined the sales and cost data, for sales of chrysanthemums, of 
Cultivos Miramonte and Flores Mocari to calculate a weighted-average 
margin for the Miramonte Group. Asocolflores asserts that Cultivos 
Miramonte reported its data on a per-bunch basis, while Flores Mocari 
reported its data on a per-stem basis. According to Asocolflores, this 
severely understates per-unit U.S. sales prices. Asocolflores asks the 
Department to convert Flores Mocari's data to bunches in its final 
results. Asocolflores further requests that the Department recheck 
Cultivos Miramonte's packing expenses and reverse the adjustment the 
Department made to these expenses for the preliminary results.
    The FTC requests that the Department adjust Cultivos Miramonte's 
data by converting it to a per-stem basis.
    Department's Position: We agree with Asocolflores that we 
improperly combined the sales and cost data for one flower type in the 
fifth review. Since converting stems to bunches, as opposed to the 
reverse, would not alter the results of our margin calculations, we 
chose the methodology with the least amount of burden. Therefore, for 
these final results, we have converted Cultivos Miramonte's data from a 
per-bunch basis to a per-stem basis as the FTC suggested. In addition, 
we have rechecked the packing expenses and found no flaws in our 
calculations.
    Comment 32: Asocolflores asserts that Flores Calima (Calima) and 
Flores el Roble (Roble) are not successors to Flores el Majui and 
Sunset Farms, respectively. Therefore, Asocolflores contends that 
Calima and Roble should not be assigned a deposit rate based on margins 
assigned to Flores el Mujui and Sunset Farms. Asocolflores cites the 
Department's four-point successorship test outlined in Brass Sheet and 
Strip: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 57 FR 
20460 (May 13, 1992) (Brass Sheet), and suggests that an examination of 
the evidence as it relates to these firms demonstrates that none of 
these four points has been met.
    The FTC rebuts that neither Majui nor Sunset Farms submitted timely 
information. Thus, the FTC contends, the Department does not have 
sufficient information to apply the successorship test.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC. Although we have a 
response from Calima, we have no response from Majui. Similarly, we 
have a response from Roble, but not from Sunset Farms. Because we 
initiated a review for the seventh POR for Majui and Sunset Farms, and 
did not receive a response from these firms, we have assigned Majui and 
Sunset Farms a margin based on first-tier BIA. See our response to 
Comments 55 and 57. Calima and Roble failed to notify us before we 
published our preliminary results that, during the seventh POR, they 
had purchased the assets of these firms. Since issuance of the 
preliminary results, we solicited and received a response from Calima 
and Roble. The responses demonstrated that they purchased the assets of 
Majui and Sunset Farms. However, at this late stage in the proceeding, 
we were not requesting information from Calima and Roble because they 
were successors to Majui and Sunset Farms; rather, we were soliciting 
their responses to determine the nature of their relationships with the 
Queen's Flowers Group. See our response to Comments 26 and 27.
    In the absence of record evidence to the contrary, we must assume 
that the firms' operations were ``essentially similar.'' To conclude 
otherwise would reward successor companies by absolving them from their 
inherited antidumping duty liabilities and encourage companies that 
have been sold not to respond to our requests for information. 
Therefore, independent of our decision to assign BIA to these firms as 
a result of their inclusion in the Queen's Flowers Group, we have 
assigned a margin based on BIA to Calima and Roble as individual 
companies, due to the failure to respond to our questionnaire. We note 
that this analysis was not a factor we considered in our analysis of 
whether to assign margins based on BIA to the Queen's Flowers Group.
    Comment 33: Flores San Juan argues that the Department incorrectly 
limited the amount of the firm's interest income allowed as an offset 
to constructed value to the amount of interest expense included in 
constructed value. Flores San Juan contends that all of its income is 
attributable to short-term working capital investments related to 
production; therefore, the respondent contends, the Department's policy 
directs that all such income qualifies for inclusion in the offset to 
the interest expense. However, respondent states, because the firm is 
largely capitalized through shareholder equity rather than with debt, 
it has only minimal financial expenses. Consequently, in Flores San 
Juan's view, the Department's ``cap'' is unfair because the firm does 
not receive as much benefit as a company that chooses to capitalize 
largely through short-term debt. Flores San Juan further states that 
there is no rational basis for treating the working capital income of 
one producer differently from the working capital income of another 
producer solely because of the way in which the companies are 
capitalized. Flores San Juan argues in addition that, because its 
interest income is directly related to production, the firm's true cost 
of production in fact is lowered by its interest income. Flores San 
Juan concludes that it is appropriate for the Department to allow the 
full offset for interest income and not limit it to the

[[Page 42858]]

level of interest expenses respondent incurred.
    Department's Position: Consistent with our past practice, we have 
permitted Flores San Juan to offset its interest expense with short-
term interest income related to operations, but only to the extent that 
interest expenses are incurred by Flores San Juan. As part of general 
expenses for constructed value, we include an amount for interest 
expense. It is the Department's normal practice to allow short-term 
interest income to offset financing costs only up to the amount of such 
financing costs. See, e.g., Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 
2378, 2379 (Jan. 9, 1995). The Act specifically requires that we 
include various costs, such as material and fabrication, in calculating 
constructed value. Were we to deduct the full amount of claimed 
interest income, we would not only offset interest expense but we would 
effectively be offsetting material and fabrication costs as well. 
Therefore, to avoid reducing costs not related to interest expenses, we 
have capped the deduction for interest income at the level of interest 
expense. See section 773(e)(1)(A) of the Act.
    Comment 34: Flores San Juan and the Bojaca Group disagree with the 
Department's use of the higher figure to reconcile discrepancies in 
Table 1 and 2 of their responses with respect to packing and indirect 
selling expenses.
    Flores San Juan claims that it erroneously reported packing 
expenses for all markets instead of packing expenses for the U.S. 
market in Table 2 of its responses. In Table 1 of its response, Flores 
San Juan contends, it reported another lower figure which it claims to 
be the correct figure. Flores San Juan concludes that the Department 
should reconcile the packing expenses in Tables 1 and 2 by including in 
Table 2 only those packing expenses respondent reported in Table 1.
    The Bojaca Group claims that the values for packing expense and 
indirect selling expense reported in Table 1 of its response are the 
correct values as opposed to the values reported in Table 2 which the 
Department used to reconcile the two tables. Respondent suggests that 
the Department use the values in Table 1 to reconcile the packing 
expenses and indirect selling expenses in tables 1 and 2.
    Department's Position: Since we received both Flores San Juan and 
the Bojaca Group's requests that we correct their responses after 
publication of our preliminary results and the alleged errors were not 
apparent from the record in either case, we have applied the six 
criteria explained in the Background section of this notice. We find 
that both respondents failed to meet one of these criteria in that they 
did not provide supporting documentation for the alleged clerical 
errors. Therefore, we have not made the changes requested.
    Comment 35: Agromonte Ltda. claims that the Department appears to 
have deleted sales volumes sold to customer 01 for standard carnations 
in the fifth review for the months of March, April, and May 1991 and 
requests that the Department ensure that its calculations reflect these 
sales.
    Department's Position: We agree that the sales volumes were missing 
from our preliminary calculations for the particular months stated 
above for importer 01. Our review of the record indicates that the data 
were missing on both sets of diskettes respondent submitted to the 
Department on July 8, 1994, but the sales volumes did appear in the 
Table 1 printout for importer 01 in the company's sections C and D 
questionnaire response. Therefore, we have corrected the error using 
the information provided in the response and recalculated Agromonte's 
weighted- average margin.
    Comment 36: Agromonte Ltda. states that the preliminary results 
list ``Flores Agromonte'' as a company the Department could not locate 
and as to which the ``all other'' rate would apply. Agromonte Ltda. 
states that, to the best of its knowledge, there is no such company as 
``Flores Agromonte.'' Therefore, to avoid any possible confusion at 
Customs, Agromonte Ltda. requests that the Department terminate its 
initiation of a review of ``Flores Agromonte.''
    The FTC argues that Asocolflores certified to the existence of a 
Flores Agromonte and an Agromonte Ltda. in a 1989 submission to the 
CIT. See FTC Public Request for Review (1993-94) at Ex. 2 (March 31, 
1994). Because there is no information confirming that Flores Agromonte 
does not exist, the FTC contends that the Department should continue to 
assign the company a rate based on BIA in its final results.
    Department's Position: Because Asocolflores certified to the 
existence of a Flores Agromonte in the above-referenced document, and 
there is no conclusive evidence on the record indicating that Flores 
Agromonte does not exist, we will instruct Customs to collect cash 
deposits on imports from Flores Agromonte equal to the ``all others'' 
rate of 3.10 percent from the LTFV investigation (not BIA as stated by 
the FTC in its comment) because we could not locate the firm.
    Comment 37: Flores las Caicas states that the Department's 
disclosure memorandum indicates that the packing and indirect selling 
expenses it reported in Table 2 were higher than those it reported in 
Table 1. Flores las Caicas notes that the problem did exist on an 
earlier submission but was corrected in a supplemental submission dated 
August 30, 1994. Flores las Caicas believes that the Department 
analyzed the wrong diskettes and requests that the Department base its 
final results on the data submitted on August 30, 1994.
    The FTC argues that Flores las Caicas did not alert the Department 
of the modification until July 21, 1995. See Asocolflores Public Case 
Brief at 2. Therefore, the FTC contends that the Department is under no 
obligation to modify its preliminary results.
    Department's Position: We requested supplemental information from 
Flores las Caicas, and it responded in a timely manner with a 
supplemental response accompanied by revised diskettes. Although we 
neglected to use the revised diskettes in our analysis for the 
preliminary results, we have based our final results on the data Flores 
las Caicas submitted on the revised diskettes.
    Comment 38: Flores de Suesca disagrees with the Department's 
preliminary decision to apply a non-cooperative, first-tier BIA rate to 
its transactions because it did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. Flores de Suesca argues that it did respond as part of 
the Toto Flowers Group, and that the Department published a preliminary 
rate for the group, which included Flores de Suesca.
    The FTC contends that Asocolflores certified to the CIT in 1989 
that there were two companies named Flores de Suesca and Flores Suesca 
(FTC Public Request for Review (1993-94)). Therefore, to the extent 
that the Department located a company, Flores Suesca, that did not 
respond to the Department's questionnaire, the FTC believes that the 
preliminary results were correct.
    Department's Position: Flores de Suesca responded to the 
Department's questionnaire as part of the Toto Flowers Group. Our 
record indicates that Flores Suesca is a variant name for Flores de 
Suesca, as reflected in our preliminary results notice. We 
inadvertently assigned Flores de Suesca a BIA rate in the preliminary 
results as an individual company, as well as a calculated rate for the 
Toto Flowers Group. In these final results, we calculated a rate for 
the Toto Flowers Group which includes Flores de Suesca.

[[Page 42859]]

    Comment 39: Flores de la Sabana S.A. argues that the Department 
should not assign BIA to Sabana Flowers. Flores de la Sabana claims 
that there is no firm named ``Sabana Flowers.'' Flores de la Sabana 
claims that it received the questionnaire intended for Sabana Flowers 
and that it acknowledged the receipt by facsimile message. Flores de la 
Sabana also claims that in that message it noted that ``Sabana 
Flowers'' does not exist. Flores de la Sabana notes that it responded 
to the Department's requests for information and that the Department 
calculated margins for it. Flores de la Sabana requests, therefore, 
that the Department remove ``Sabana Flowers'' from its list of BIA 
companies so as to avoid any potential confusion with Flores de la 
Sabana or Flores de la Sabana's related importer, Sabana Farms.
    The FTC argues that Asocolflores submitted a certified list of 
producers to the CIT that included both Flores de la Sabana and Sabana 
Flowers. The FTC urges the Department to continue to assign Sabana 
Flowers a BIA rate in its final results absent information that this 
company no longer exists.
    Department's Position: We sent a questionnaire to both Flores de la 
Sabana and Sabana Flowers. The address that we used to send the 
questionnaires to Sabana Flowers differs from the address in the 
response and on the letterhead of Flores de la Sabana. From the 
international courier, we received a confirmation of receipt of the 
questionnaire at the address we used for Sabana Flowers. See Memorandum 
to File by Mark Ross dated November 8, 1995. In addition, Asocolflores 
provided a certified list of producers to the CIT that lists Sabana 
Flowers as a Colombian flower producer. Therefore, because there is no 
conclusive evidence on the record indicating that Sabana Flowers does 
not exist, we have continued to treat Flores de la Sabana and Sabana 
Flowers as two separate existing entities, and we have applied a first-
tier BIA rate to imports into the United States by Sabana Flowers 
during the PORs and for future deposits of antidumping duties.
    Comment 40: Flores de la Sabana argues that the rate applicable to 
Flores de la Sabana should also apply to Roselandia S.A. Flores de la 
Sabana contends that it responded as the Sabana Group, consisting of 
Roselandia S.A. and Flores de la Sabana. Flores de la Sabana alleges 
that, while Roselandia did not sell subject merchandise, it produces 
some carnations and cuttings which it sold to Flores de la Sabana. 
Flores de la Sabana also expresses concern that the Department did not 
use its consolidated response, and asks that the Department use the 
consolidated tables Flores de la Sabana submitted.
    The FTC agrees that, to the extent that the Department agrees that 
these companies should be collapsed, the Department should correct the 
errors described above. The FTC notes, however, that respondents may 
not unilaterally consolidate data.
    Department's Position: We have reviewed the record and conclude 
that Flores de la Sabana and Roselandia S.A. are related and should 
have been collapsed. While we used the consolidated tables submitted by 
Flores de la Sabana in our preliminary results, we published the rate 
as if it were applicable only to Flores de la Sabana and listed 
Roselandia S.A. as a non-shipper during the PORs. We should have listed 
both companies under the entity ``Sabana Group.'' We have corrected 
this oversight for the final results.
    Comment 41: Flores de la Sabana argues that the Department should 
not have disallowed discounts received from suppliers in its 
preliminary results because they were reported as ``other financial 
income'' in the spreadsheet. Flores de la Sabana contends that, at a 
minimum, the Department should allow the discounts as an offset to cost 
somewhere in the spreadsheet, if not necessarily as an offset to 
financial expense, or else costs will be overstated.
    The FTC argues that the Department should reject this adjustment if 
Flores de la Sabana has not established that the discount is directly 
related to specific material or service purchases.
    Department's Position: Flores de la Sabana received the discounts 
it reported on purchases of supplies. However, Flores de la Sabana did 
not submit, either in the spreadsheet or in its narrative responses, 
the requisite information for us to properly assign these discounts to 
costs of the applicable flower types. In fact, we cannot determine from 
the record whether respondent included discounts on supplies applicable 
to non-subject merchandise in the figure. In addition, we do not apply 
these discounts as an offset to financial expense because they are not 
financial income. Therefore, we have not accounted for these discounts 
in our calculations for the final results.
    Comment 42: The Claveles Colombianas Group (Clavecol) argues that 
the Department should not have replaced negative values reported in the 
company's section D response with zero values. Clavecol explains that 
some numbers may be negative because it made accounting adjustments in 
one month to reclassify into the appropriate accounts amounts it 
incorrectly classified in previous months. Also, Clavecol explains, the 
same numbers in the ``Crop Adjustment'' section of its response may be 
negative because the firm used this section to calculate the net 
adjustment to actual monthly expenses fully reported in other lines of 
the response. Clavecol contends that the Department never asked for 
clarification of why negative values occurred. Clavecol argues that 
similar circumstances pertained in the LTFV investigation of Roses, and 
that the Department verified such negative values as correct in that 
investigation. Clavecol asks that the Department reverse its decision 
as to the treatment of negative values in the spreadsheet because the 
Department's current practice, as applied to Clavecol, overstates 
Clavecol's costs.
    The FTC argues that the Department should continue to re-classify 
negative values as zero. The FTC contends that allowing respondents to 
report accounting adjustments in this manner would invite manipulation 
of data. The FTC further claims that verification in another case 
should not affect the Department's analysis in this case.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Clavecol that we should not 
have changed the negative values to zero. Although Clavecol submitted a 
narrative explanation of the negative numbers in its post-preliminary 
supplemental response, there was no evidence on the record that 
supports its explanation. See our response to comment 34, above.
    With regard to the negative numbers that allegedly are the result 
of accounting adjustments, we cannot determine, based on the record, 
whether Clavecol's explanations are reasonable or accurate. Clavecol's 
original response describes year-end adjustments that appear to be made 
in order to report the actual expenses (see Clavecol's August 3, 1994 
response to section D at 2), though no reference is made to negative 
cost. We examined the response with regard to the negative numbers, and 
it appears that some of the negative numbers are year-end adjustments, 
but these figures are not fully explained. Also, we could not discern 
any pattern in the placement of the negative numbers that would allow 
us to determine the nature of the negative numbers.
    Finally, we cannot tell whether the adjustments Clavecol describes 
are limited to either the same POR or the same types of expenses. We 
are concerned that costs might be shifted from materials, labor, and 
overhead expenses to general and administrative expenses, or that costs 
might be shifted

[[Page 42860]]

from one month to another. Although we use an annually-averaged 
constructed value as FMV, the shifting of costs from one month to 
another implied by these ``year-end adjustments'' may distort costs 
because of the high degree of fluctuation in the peso-to-dollar 
exchange rate.
    We agree with the FTC that verifications in other cases have no 
bearing on determining whether a response is reasonable in the instant 
reviews. Therefore, in the absence of record evidence indicating 
otherwise, and because we are concerned about the possibility of 
manipulation of the firm's cost response implied in the negative 
numbers, we have converted the negative numbers allegedly due to 
accounting adjustments reported in Clavecol's response to zeroes for 
the purpose of calculating the margins.
    With regard to the negative numbers we found in Clavecol's crop 
adjustment methodology, we found that Clavecol's original submission 
adequately described its methodology. We also found that, although 
Clavecol's methodology deviated from the format we indicated in our 
questionnaire, it produces the same results and does not distort costs. 
Therefore, we have used Clavecol's original cost response with respect 
to its crop adjustment methodology.
    Comment 43: The Santa Rosa Group (Santa Rosa) claims that the 
Department improperly disallowed the amount of amortized pre-production 
expenses carried forward to future periods after the close of each POR. 
Santa Rosa contends that, although it did not use the methodology the 
Department set forth in the questionnaire, its methodology achieved the 
same results.
    For direct materials costs, Santa Rosa claims that it reported all 
costs incurred in each review period, albeit in a different place than 
the Department requested. Santa Rosa claims that it properly reported 
the amounts attributable to future periods, resulting in a net 
adjustment to period expenses for amortization rather than the total 
pre-production expenses. Santa Rosa explains that it used a similar 
procedure for direct labor and overhead farm costs.
    Santa Rosa asks that, if the Department disallows the amounts 
carried forward to future years, that it also eliminate from current 
pre-production costs all such costs respondent carried forward from 
prior years, as reported in specific spreadsheet lines. Santa Rosa 
contends that it would be improper to disallow only one part of the 
amortization of pre-production expenses.
    The FTC argues that Santa Rosa admitted to deviating from the 
reporting format in the questionnaire. Thus, the FTC contends, the 
Department's adjustment to the response was justified because Santa 
Rosa did not provide the information in the format requested.
    Department's Position: We reexamined Santa Rosa's submissions and 
found that Santa Rosa's original submission and supplemental response 
adequately described its pre-production cost methodology. We also found 
that, although Santa Rosa's methodology deviated from the format we 
identified in our supplemental questionnaire, it produces the same 
results and does not distort costs. Therefore, we have used Santa 
Rosa's original cost response with respect to its crop adjustment 
methodology.
    Comment 44: Santa Rosa argues that the Department should not list 
Floricola la Ramada as a company which will receive the ``all others'' 
rate. Santa Rosa states that Floricola la Ramada is a member of the 
Santa Rosa Group and was listed as such in the Department's list of 
rates in the preliminary results.
    Department's Position: We agree with Santa Rosa that Floricola la 
Ramada is a member of the Santa Rosa Group and we have corrected this 
oversight for these final results.
    Comment 45: The AGA Group and the FTC claim that the Department 
erroneously published separate rates for Agricola Benilda.
    Department's Position: We disagree with both the AGA Group and the 
FTC. Because Agricola Benilda was not part of the AGA Group until the 
7th review period we have listed Agricola Benilda twice. For the 5th 
and 6th PORs, Agricola Benilda receives a separate rate from the AGA 
Group because it was not a member of the AGA group. During the 7th POR, 
Agricola Benilda was a member of the AGA group, so we have collapsed it 
with the AGA group for that period. Therefore, duties for the 7th POR 
and future cash deposits for Agricola Benilda will be at the AGA Group 
rate.
    Comment 46: The Bojaca Group (Bojaca) argues that the Department 
erroneously calculated and allocated net financing costs for the group, 
which consists of three companies. Bojaca claims that the Department 
erred in attempting to implement its practice of using group-wide 
financing expenses on two accounts. First, Bojaca states that the 
Department took group-wide financing expenses from calendar-year-based 
financial statements for the three companies and used these in the 
constructed value calculation, which is based on a March-to-February 
period. Second, Bojaca contends that the Department overallocated these 
financial expenses to subject merchandise because it did not have 
accurate total sales data. Bojaca argues that the Department should 
either use data provided by the group in its inflation-adjustment 
response submitted after the preliminary results of review, or rely 
upon the Universal Flowers data Bojaca originally submitted.
    The FTC counters that, because Bojaca did not report its financial 
expenses as required in the questionnaire, the Department is not 
required to use the unsolicited, post- preliminary, corrected data 
Bojaca submitted and, therefore, the Department is justified in 
calculating financial expenses on the basis of BIA.
    Department's Position: We agree with the FTC. Bojaca failed to 
supply the group-wide sales revenue and financing expense data in its 
original response. We requested that Bojaca correct its sales revenue 
and financial expense data in a supplemental questionnaire, and, again, 
Bojaca failed to do so. Under these circumstances, we relied on the 
sales revenue and financial expenses from the financial statements of 
the three companies as BIA.
    Comment 47: Flores el Zorro disagrees with the Department's 
application of total BIA to its transactions. Respondent contends that 
all of the errors in its response are clerical in nature and can be 
corrected by the Department without the submission of new information. 
Flores el Zorro describes how nine errors noted by the Department can 
be corrected for the calculation of margins. Flores el Zorro requests 
that the Department accept its explanation and calculate weighted-
average margins for its sales.
    Department's Position: We identified several errors in Flores el 
Zorro's responses and applied BIA in the preliminary results. Those 
errors were as follows: (1) The misidentification of sales as ESP 
sales; (2) exceptionally high indirect selling expense amounts for U.S. 
sales; (3) inconsistencies in the unit numbers of U.S. exports and 
total exports; (4) reporting direct selling expenses in the constructed 
value spreadsheet, but reporting no direct selling expenses in the U.S. 
sales spreadsheet; (5) reporting indirect selling expenses in the U.S. 
sales spreadsheet, but not in the constructed value spreadsheet; (6) an 
inconsistency between reported U.S. packing expenses in the sales 
spreadsheets and the constructed value spreadsheets; (7) the reporting 
of different interest income and expense amounts in each month of the 
reviews for each flower type; (8) an

[[Page 42861]]

inadequate explanation of how interest income was related to 
production; and (9) the overstatement of the crop adjustment expense 
amounts.
    Because we received Flores el Zorro's request that we correct its 
response after publication of our preliminary results and the alleged 
error was not apparent from the record, we have applied the six 
criteria explained in the Background section of this notice. We find 
that Flores el Zorro met all of these criteria for the first, second, 
third, fourth, fifth, and seventh errors and have corrected these 
errors for the final results, resulting in recalculated margins for 
Flores el Zorro. However, Flores el Zorro failed to meet one of these 
criteria for the sixth, eighth, and ninth errors in that it did not 
provide supporting documentation for the alleged clerical errors. 
Therefore, we have not made the changes requested by Flores el Zorro 
for these alleged errors.
    Comment 48: The Tropicales Group contends that several errors in 
its response, which caused the Department to apply adverse inferences 
in the preliminary results, were the result of transcription errors and 
that the correct information is evident on the record. According to 
respondent, the first error involves the amortization costs carried 
forward in the amortization tables, the second error is an 
overstatement of packing expense amounts for the 7th review, and the 
third error is a discrepancy in the amounts reported for indirect 
selling expenses on two tables for the 7th review. The Tropicales Group 
states that the Department should use the lesser of the two amounts 
because that amount matches the amount in the firm's accounting 
records.
    Department's Position: Because we received the Tropicales Group's 
request that we correct its response after publication of our 
preliminary results and the alleged error was not apparent from the 
record, we have applied the six criteria explained in the Background 
section of this notice. We find that the Tropicales Group met all of 
these criteria for the first two errors and have corrected these errors 
for the final results and recalculated the margin for the Tropicales 
Group.
    However, the Tropicales Group failed to meet one of these criteria 
for the third error in that it did not provide supporting documentation 
for the alleged clerical error. Therefore, we have not made the change 
requested by the Tropicales Group for this alleged error.
    Comment 49: Flores Tropicales expresses concern that the Department 
is considering collapsing it with another respondent in the 7th review 
period. Respondent asserts that it and the other firm are not agents or 
principals of each other, neither owns, directly or indirectly, any 
interest in the other, and there are no persons that own any percentage 
in both firms. Consequently, Flores Tropicales argues that the two 
companies are not related and that the Department should not collapse 
the two firms for its analysis.
    Department's Position: Section 771(13) of the Act establishes a 
standard for relationship based on association, ownership or control. 
The Department agrees that the Tropicales Group's relationship with a 
second firm during the 7th POR does not meet the criteria for 
relatedness primarily because this relationship existed only in the 
last two months of the seventh POR. Therefore, for the purposes of 
these reviews we have not collapsed the two firms.
    Comment 50: Iturrama contends that it should not receive BIA for 
failing to itemize the costs it reported in its constructed value table 
and failing to provide a particular grower's report, as requested by 
the Department in a supplemental questionnaire. Iturrama asserts that 
it did not understand the reasons why the Department asked certain 
questions and, therefore, did not fully explain why it could not 
provide the requested information. With regard to Iturrama's failure to 
itemize costs reported in its constructed value table, Iturrama claims 
that the company's accounting system simply does not permit the cost 
itemization the Department requested. Iturrama provided a sample of its 
trial balance and an auxiliary ledger to show that the total costs 
reported in the company's financial records reconcile to the total 
costs figures reported in the response. With regard to the grower's 
report, Iturrama argues that it simply did not have it, and, therefore, 
there is no justification for assigning BIA. Iturrama concludes that 
BIA cannot lawfully be applied under the circumstances, and requests 
that the Department use its data in the final results.
    The FTC argues that, if the Department finds that Iturrama's 
explanations justify reconsideration of its response, the Department 
should request an additional sampling of grower's reports to confirm 
the accuracy of Iturrama's reported U.S. sales.
    Department's Position: Because Iturrama does not have the requested 
grower's report and does not maintain the level of cost detail in its 
normal books and records that would be required to comply with our 
request, we have reconsidered our decision to apply BIA rates to the 
firm. For these final results, we have used its response in calculating 
margins. We have not requested an additional sampling of grower's 
reports because we are satisfied that the company's U.S. sales are 
accurately reported.
    Comment 51: Agricola Acevedo claims that it incorrectly reported 
total packing expenses for all markets instead of U.S. packing expenses 
in its constructed value tables for the 5th, 6th, and 7th reviews. 
However, Agricola Acevedo asserts that, with respect to the 5th and 6th 
reviews, it reported the correct U.S. packing expenses in its U.S. 
price table.
    Department's Position: Because Agricola Acevedo brought this error 
to our attention after publication of our preliminary results and the 
alleged error is not apparent from the record, we have applied the six 
criteria explained in the BACKGROUND section of this notice. We find 
that Agricola Acevedo failed to meet one of these criteria. Agricola 
Acevedo did not provide supporting documentation for the alleged error. 
Therefore, we have not corrected Agricola Acevedo's submission. (See 
the March 30, 1995, Memorandum to the File for an explanation of the 
U.S. packing expenses we used for Agricola Acevedo in the final 
results.)
    Comment 52: Agricola Acevedo contends that the Department 
incorrectly disallowed financial income as an offset to financial 
expenses. Agricola Acevedo explains that the claimed financial income 
consists of short-term interest income from deposits of working capital 
and income received from the sale of scrap plastic and wood from fixed 
assets, and that it identified these items individually in its response 
to the Department's questionnaire. Agricola Acevedo requests that the 
Department change its calculations accordingly.
    Department's Position: We preliminarily denied Agricola Acevedo's 
offset to financial expenses for financial income because we could not 
locate a monthly breakdown of each component of claimed financial 
income in the firm's response. However, based on Agricola Acevedo's 
clarification and further analysis of the company's questionnaire 
response, we are now satisfied that the company's constructed value 
submission contains the breakdown we requested. Notwithstanding 
Agricola Acevedo's compliance with our reporting requirements, we are 
only allowing the offset to financial expenses for the company's short-
term interest income from deposits of working capital. The Department 
only allows an offset to financial expenses for short-term interest 
income directly related to the

[[Page 42862]]

general operations of the company. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon 
and Alloy Steel, Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Italy, 60 FR 
31981, 31991 (June 19, 1995). Income from the sale of scrap plastic and 
wood does not constitute this type of revenue. Under GAAP this revenue 
could be claimed as an offset to general and administrative expenses by 
reporting it as a gain or a loss on the disposal of a fixed asset. 
However, Agricola Acevedo did not compare the sales value to the book 
value of the fixed assets sold as required under GAAP. Agricola Acevedo 
also did not justify that these materials were related to the 
production of subject merchandise produced and sold within these PORs. 
Therefore, we have disallowed the offset Agricola Acevedo claimed for 
income it received from the sale of scrap plastic and wood.
    Comment 53: Papagayo argues that the Department made an error in 
its margin calculations by incorrectly consolidating Papagayo's sales 
tables. Papagayo states that, because each LOTUS file would not 
accommodate more than 25 importers, it used two files to report the 
sales data for its submission.
    The FTC argues that the errors appear to be the result of 
respondent's deviations from the format the Department instructed 
respondents to use in the questionnaire.
    Department's Position: We agree with Papagayo and have used the two 
sales files for the final results.
Issues Raised by Other Respondents
    Comment 54: My Flowers requests that the Department not apply a 
non-cooperative BIA rate to its entries of subject flowers for failing 
to respond to the Department's requests for information. My Flowers 
claims that it never received the questionnaire or any other 
information regarding the administrative reviews. Furthermore, My 
Flowers contends that the address to which the Department sent 
materials was out of date, and that it has not occupied the space at 
the address since December 1992. In support of this argument, My 
Flowers provides registration certificates from the Colombian Chamber 
of Commerce, authenticated by the U.S. Embassy and the Colombian 
Ministry of Foreign Relations. My Flowers claims that the company at 
its old address received the questionnaire, but failed to let My 
Flowers know of its arrival. My Flowers submits documentation 
supporting that the individual who signed the delivery record for the 
questionnaire was not a My Flowers employee. In conclusion, My Flowers 
requests that the Department treat it as unlocatable for the POR, and 
that the Department instruct Customs to assess the ``all others'' rate 
of 3.10 percent on its entries.
    The FTC requests that, if the Department accepts My Flowers' 
explanation, it include the company in any subsequent administrative 
reviews.
    Department's Position: We have reviewed the documentary evidence on 
the record and conclude that My Flowers did not receive the 
questionnaire. Therefore, we have not assigned My Flowers a BIA rate. 
Instead, we have added My Flowers to the list of firms that were 
unlocatable, and we will instruct Customs to liquidate its entries at 
the ``all others'' rate since we have not previously reviewed this 
firm. We will include My Flowers in any subsequent administrative 
review if we receive a request for review from an interested party 
during the anniversary month of the publication of this order. See 19 
CFR 353.22(a).
    Comment 55: Equiflor and Esprit Miami claim that Flores el Majui 
ceased to exist prior to the release of the Department's questionnaire 
in the 7th review period. Further, they dispute the Department's 
preliminary conclusion that Flores el Majui had ever received the 
questionnaire. Equiflor and Esprit Miami argue that the Department 
should not assign a non-cooperative BIA rate to entries from Flores el 
Majui, and that the Department should liquidate those entries at the 
cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry.
    The FTC rebuts that a company cannot be allowed to abandon its 
antidumping duty liability by virtue of its liquidation, otherwise 
firms would simply liquidate themselves and reincorporate under a new 
name each time a new administrative review was initiated. Additionally, 
the FTC contends, Equiflor and Esprit Miami have not provided evidence 
to distinguish Flores el Majui from firms that were unlocatable or to 
establish that Flores el Majui did not receive the questionnaire.
    Department's Position: We can distinguish our treatment of Flores 
el Majui from that of My Flowers because, in the latter case, the 
company provided evidence that our service of the questionnaire was 
defective. However, Equiflor, Esprit Miami, and Flores el Majui did not 
provide such evidence to the Department. Therefore, we agree with the 
FTC that failure to apply a non-cooperative BIA rate to Flores el Majui 
would reward non-compliance with our administrative review and would 
encourage other firms to liquidate themselves and reincorporate under 
new names. Accordingly, we have applied a non-cooperative BIA rate to 
entries of merchandise from this firm.
    Comment 56: Proflores contends that the application of first-tier 
BIA due to its failure to respond to the Department's request for 
supplementary information was in error. Proflores argues that it did 
respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire and that the 
Department did receive the response in a timely manner.
    The FTC asserts that, prior to using Proflores' supplemental 
submission, the Department should require the company to submit at 
least a reasonable sampling of growers reports to confirm respondent's 
reporting methodology for certain expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree with Proflores that it submitted 
its supplemental response in a timely manner, and we have used it for 
these final results instead of applying BIA. Because we are satisfied 
with Proflores' response to our supplemental question concerning the 
reporting of certain expenses, we do not find it necessary to review 
additional information, including growers reports.
    Comment 57: Equiflor, Esprit Miami, and Eden Floral Farms (Eden), 
importers of subject merchandise in Miami, assert that the Department 
erred in applying a non-cooperative BIA margin to two Colombian 
producers: Sunset Farms (5th, 6th, and 7th reviews) and Groex S.A. (5th 
and 6th reviews). Equiflor and Esprit Miami claim that Sunset Farms was 
unable to respond to the Department's questionnaire because it had sold 
most of its assets before the Department released its questionnaires 
and was operating with reduced staff and facilities at the time it 
received the questionnaire. Equiflor and Esprit Miami argue that Sunset 
Farm's condition was far worse than that of Flores Estrella in the 
fourth review of the instant case, and, under these circumstances, the 
Department should not apply a non-cooperative BIA. Eden claims that 
Groex S.A. was out of business and liquidated prior to the due date of 
sections C and D of the questionnaire, and, therefore, was unable to 
respond to those sections. Eden notes that Groex S.A. did respond to 
section A for the 5th and 6th reviews and filed a letter stating that 
it had no shipments of the subject merchandise in the 7th review and, 
therefore, did cooperate to the extent possible.
    Bloomshare Ltda. (7th review only) and Ciba-Geigy (5th, 6th, and 
7th reviews), Colombian producers of the

[[Page 42863]]

subject merchandise, also claim that the Department erred in assigning 
them non-cooperative BIA margins. Bloomshare Ltda. claims that it 
stopped growing flowers in June 1993, and that it is now in the 
business of growing produce for the domestic market. Ciba-Geigy claims 
that it sold its plantation in 1988 to another producer and was no 
longer in the Colombian flower business during the PORs.
    The FTC rebuts that, in the Fourth Review, the Department described 
certain factors to examine when determining whether Flores Estrella and 
Mountguar were incapable of responding to its questionnaire. However, 
the FTC contends that the fact pattern in the instant reviews differs 
in that the respondents failed to notify the Department of their 
situation in a timely fashion. The FTC points to an identical fact 
pattern in the third review of this case where the Department 
determined that information regarding an alleged bankruptcy submitted 
after the preliminary results of review was untimely and therefore 
impossible to evaluate. The FTC asserts that the Department properly 
assigned non-cooperative BIA rates for these respondents.
    Department's Position: With regard to Sunset Farms and Groex, 
Equiflor, Esprit Miami, and Eden do not dispute that these two 
Colombian producers received the questionnaire. In addition, Equiflor 
and Esprit Miami do not explain why Sunset Farms failed to submit any 
response whatsoever. Eden does not dispute the fact that Groex S.A. 
failed to submit a response to sections C and D of our questionnaire or 
explain why this producer was unable to do so in a timely fashion. As 
for Bloomshare Ltda. and Ciba-Geigy, the companies do not dispute that 
they received the questionnaire and at no time prior to issuance of our 
preliminary results did they alert us to their situations. Therefore, 
because respondents have provided untimely explanations of their 
failure to respond to our questionnaire, we have assigned non-
cooperative BIA rates to Sunset Farms, Groex S.A., Bloomshare Ltda., 
and Ciba-Geigy.
    Comment 58: The Floraterra Group (Floraterra) argues that the 
Department overallocated packing expenses to Floraterra's U.S. sales. 
Floraterra acknowledges that the Department was correct in changing the 
packing expenses in Tables 1 and 2 because they should have been the 
same. Floraterra claims that it mistakenly reported packing expenses on 
all exports in Table 2, and that, by using the expense from Table 2 
instead of Table 1 as the basis for reallocation, the Department is 
allocating packing expense for all exports over just U.S. sales. 
Floraterra contends that this is obvious from the administrative 
record, and that the Department should fix the tables so that the 
expenses in Table 2 are based on the reported Table 1 expenses, and not 
the other way around.
    Department's Position: Because we received Floraterra's request 
that we correct its response after publication of our preliminary 
results, we have applied the six criteria explained in the Background 
section of this notice. We find that Floraterra met all of the 
criteria, with the substantiating evidence having been on the record 
prior to the preliminary results. Therefore, we have made this change 
for the final results.
    Comment 59: Agricola la Siberia (Siberia) claims that it made two 
errors in its original response. Siberia claims that it included 
packing and indirect selling expenses incurred on third-country sales 
as well as on U.S. sales. Siberia asks the Department to correct its 
data for the final results.
    Department's Position: Because we received Siberia's request that 
we correct its response after publication of our preliminary results 
and the alleged error was not apparent from the record, we have applied 
the six criteria explained in the Background section of this notice. We 
find that Siberia failed to meet one of these criteria in that it did 
not provide supporting documentation for the alleged clerical error. 
Therefore, we have not made the change requested by Siberia.
    Comment 60: Caicedo protests the Department's use of BIA for its 
sales of minicarnations in the 6th and 7th reviews. Caicedo notes that 
the Department said that it applied BIA for two reasons: (1) Caicedo 
improperly used its crop adjustment for the flowers and period in 
question and failed to correct its crop methodology when the Department 
requested it to do so; (2) Caicedo had made other unexplained changes 
to its data, including changes to the reported sales amounts.
    Caicedo argues that, contrary to the Department's conclusions, 
Caicedo did correct its crop adjustment methodology in a December 2, 
1994 submission as requested by the Department. However, Caicedo 
contends that the Department used an earlier submission by the firm in 
its calculations for the preliminary results. With respect to 
unexplained charges relating to sales amounts, Caicedo explains that it 
had inadvertently transferred to its December 2 submission erroneous 
figures from an earlier response, which it had already corrected for 
the record. Caicedo concludes that these errors should be corrected 
because the errors are obvious from the information already in the 
record.
    The FTC maintains that Caicedo had several opportunities to supply 
corrected information and that the Department was justified in relying 
on Caicedo's last submission as containing the correct data. The FTC 
further states that it is the responsibility of Caicedo to prepare its 
own data correctly.
    Department's Position: We have reviewed the record and conclude 
that Caicedo did make proper corrections as we requested to its crop 
adjustment methodology. Also, we agree that Caicedo did make certain 
clerical errors that are substantiated from the information already on 
the record. Therefore, we have used the corrected information on the 
record for the final margin calculations.
    Comment 61: Guacatay argues that the Department should not have set 
to zero certain negative net financing costs Guacatay reported in the 
5th and 7th reviews. Guacatay states that it made year-end adjustments 
to its financial expenses to reverse certain provisional entries it 
made earlier in the years covered by 5th and 7th reviews. According to 
Guacatay, the result of these year-end adjustments was that it reported 
financial costs occasionally as negative numbers. However, Guacatay 
contends, the net financial costs for the PORs as a whole are always 
positive. Therefore, Guacatay requests that the Department use the net 
financial costs it reported and explained in its supplemental response.
    The FTC disagrees and states that this type of accounting invites 
manipulation and the Department correctly adjusted negative values to 
zero.
    Department's Position: We agree with Guacatay. We have reexamined 
Guacatay's supplemental response and conclude that the company 
adequately explained the basis for making negative financial cost 
adjustments for certain months. We have therefore used the net 
financial costs Guacatay reported.
    Comment 62: HOSA argues that, although it failed to submit a 
request for revocation on the anniversary month of the order as 
required by the Department's regulations, the Department has the 
discretion under 19 CFR 353.25(a) to grant the untimely revocation 
request. HOSA further argues that certain circumstances, such as its 
late retention of counsel and its inability to run an analysis of three 
years' worth of data to determine its eligibility for revocation at 
that time, justifies that its late revocation request be given 
consideration by the Department.

[[Page 42864]]

    The FTC argues that, even if the Department otherwise finds HOSA to 
be eligible for revocation, it should deny HOSA's request for 
revocation because it was not submitted in a timely fashion.
    Department's Position: Based on our final results of these 
administrative reviews, we find that HOSA has not had a three-year 
period of no sales at less than fair value and thus does not qualify 
for revocation. Therefore, the issue of HOSA's late revocation request 
is moot.
    Comment 63: Aspen Garden Ltda. contends that, for the final 
results, the Department should use the prime rate it reported in its 
original questionnaire response instead of calculating imputed credit 
expenses for U.S. sales based on the company's short-term Colombian 
peso borrowings during each POR. Furthermore, Aspen Garden Ltda. argues 
that the Department should use the statutory eight-percent profit for 
constructed value instead of the profit percentage it reported in its 
original questionnaire response. Aspen Garden Ltda. explains that it 
based the profit percentage it reported in its original submission on 
third-country sales and, furthermore, that it calculated the rate 
incorrectly. Finally, Aspen Garden Ltda. contends that the packing 
expenses it reported in its U.S. price table are correct, and the 
Department should not have modified them. Aspen Garden Ltda. explains 
that it mistakenly reported in its constructed value table the cost of 
packing flowers that are not under review in addition to the cost of 
packing subject merchandise, and requests that the Department not 
modify the packing costs it reported in its U.S. price table.
    Department's Position: We do not agree with Aspen Garden's argument 
that we should calculate imputed credit expenses on U.S. sales using 
the prime rate respondent reported in its original questionnaire 
response. We have calculated Aspen Garden's imputed credit expenses 
based on the company's short-term Colombian peso borrowings during the 
POR. (See the March 30, 1995, Memorandum to the File for a discussion 
of Aspen Garden's interest rate calculation. For a full discussion of 
the interest rate issue, see our response to Comment 22 of this 
notice.) With regard to profit for constructed value, we have used the 
statutory eight-percent figure since the profit percentage that Aspen 
Garden reported in its original submission was based on third-country 
sales data. (See our response to Comment 8 for a full discussion of the 
appropriate profit percentage to use for constructed value.) Aspen 
Garden made it clear in its original questionnaire response that it 
used third-country sales data to calculate the profit percentage it 
originally reported.
    With regard to packing expenses, we received Aspen Garden's request 
that we correct its response after publication of our preliminary 
results and the alleged error is not apparent from the record. 
Therefore, we have applied the six criteria explained in the Background 
section of this notice. We find that Aspen Garden's situation fails to 
meet one of these criteria. Aspen Garden did not provide supporting 
documentation for the alleged error. Therefore, we have not made the 
change requested by Aspen Garden. (See the March 30, 1995, Memorandum 
to the File for an explanation of the U.S. packing expenses we used for 
Aspen Garden in the final results.)
    Comment 64: Flores de Oriente claims that the distribution of 
indirect selling expenses the Department made is incorrect. According 
to respondent, for one client, the cost of packing and handling was 
included in indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market on 
U.S. sales. Therefore, respondent contends, it did not report packing 
costs for this particular customer. Respondent states that the indirect 
selling expenses in Table 1 will not equal Table 2 because of this, but 
total costs for the Table 1 and Table 2 are equal. Thus, respondent 
argues, the Department should not have made adjustments to packing 
costs and indirect selling expenses.
    Department's Position: We do not agree with Flores de Oriente that 
total costs for Table 1 equal Table 2. Packing expenses respondent 
reported in Table 2 equalled the packing expenses it reported in Table 
1. However, indirect selling expenses respondent reported in Table 1 
did not equal indirect selling expenses it reported in Table 2. 
Therefore, total costs between the two tables did not reconcile. 
Because indirect selling expenses did not reconcile, we have 
distributed these expenses for these final results as we did for the 
preliminary results.
    Comment 65: Agromonte Ltda. argues that the Department incorrectly 
changed the figures for packing costs and indirect selling expenses 
incurred in Colombia on U.S. sales when the totals reported in Table 1 
conflicted with the amounts reported in Table 2. Agromonte Ltda. claims 
that the reason for the discrepancy in packing costs is because the 
values it reported in Table 1 are based on units sold while the values 
for Table 2E are based on boxes sent. According to respondent, the 
correct amounts are the ones it stated in Table 2E because they 
identify the packing costs of the total units sent each month.
    Agromonte Ltda. contends that it could not find any discrepancies 
between Table 1 and Table 2D for indirect selling expenses. Therefore, 
respondent states, the Department should not have made any changes.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Agromonte's argument. Even 
though respondent calculated the amounts it reported in Table 2E for 
packing costs based on boxes shipped and the amounts it reported in 
Table 1 were calculated on units sold, the totals should still equal 
one another. Therefore, the adjustments we made in the preliminary 
results remain in our final results.
    As for Agromonte's contention that there were no discrepancies 
relating to indirect selling expenses, we disagree. The amounts 
respondent reported in Table 2D do not equal the amounts it reported in 
Table 1. Therefore, the reconciliation we made in the preliminary 
results remains in our final results.
    Comment 66: Florval S.A. claims that it erroneously reported 
packing costs and indirect selling expenses for all markets instead of 
packing expenses and indirect selling expenses for the U.S. market in 
Table 2D and Table 2E of its response. Florval requests that the 
Department include in Table 2 the results of adding all indirect 
selling expenses and packing costs shown in Table 1 for each customer.
    Department's Position: We agree with Florval S.A. However, instead 
of adding all indirect selling expenses and packing costs shown in 
Table 1 for each customer, we were able to determine packing costs and 
indirect selling expenses related to flowers sold in the U.S. market. 
We derived this data from information already on the record prior to 
our preliminary results.
    Comment 67: The Florcol Group argues that, in the 5th and 7th 
reviews, the difference between the amounts for indirect selling 
expenses in Table 2D compared to Table 1 is due to the allocation 
method it used. The Florcol Group states that the total indirect 
selling expenses should be allocated in Table 1 to each month on the 
basis of U.S. sales value instead of volume.
    With respect to packing costs in the 5th review, the Florcol Group 
states that the total amount shown in Table 2E corresponds to the total 
packing costs for all export quality minicarnations it sold during the 
review period. The Florcol Group states that the Department can derive 
the correct total packing costs for Table 2E by totalling the packing 
costs reported in Table 1.
    In the 7th review, Florcol contends that it used the wrong unitary 
costs for

[[Page 42865]]

packing in order to calculate packing costs for Table 1. Florcol 
identifies the correct unitary packing cost and requests that the 
Department make the appropriate corrections.
    Department's Position: Because we received the Florcol Group's 
request that we correct its response after publication of our 
preliminary results and the alleged error was not apparent from the 
record, we have applied the six criteria explained in the Background 
section of this notice. For indirect selling expenses in the 5th and 
7th reviews, we find that Florcol failed to meet these criteria in that 
the error was a methodological error and not a clerical error. Florcol 
explained, in its July 18, 1995 submission, that indirect selling 
expenses reported in Table 2 differed from those reported in Table 1 
because of the allocation methodology used. However, these expenses 
should match, regardless of the allocation methodology. In addition, 
Florcol states what it claims the correct total amount of indirect 
selling expense should be, but does not provide documentation to 
substantiate its claims.
    With respect to the unitary packing cost in the 7th review, Florcol 
did not provide supporting documentation for the alleged clerical 
error. Therefore, we have not made the change Florcol requests.
    With respect to packing costs in the 5th review, Florcol met the 
six criteria. Therefore, we have made this correction.
    Comment 68: Inversiones Santa Rita (Rita) questions why the 
Department modified line 18 of Table 2 (cull revenue) for the 
preliminary results. Rita claims that its reported data was proper and 
that it established that the data it submitted in the cull revenue 
amounts came from its invoices.
    Department's Position: We agree with Rita. We inadvertently copied 
line 18 of Rita's Table 2, cull revenue, for minicarnations in the 6th 
review to line 18 for standard carnations in the 6th review. The same 
error occurred in the 7th review. For the final results, we used Rita's 
original data as reported.
    Comment 69: Rita argues that each flower type it grows has a 
substantially different cost of production and that the Department was 
incorrect in modifying these costs by using a percentage-based ratio of 
these items to the total sales as reported in the financial statements.
    Department's Position: In our October 25, 1994, supplemental 
questionnaire, we asked Rita to explain its methodology for allocating 
indirect costs and general expenses. In addition, we asked Rita to 
explain the accuracy of its allocation methodology when ``area of 
cultivation'' was used as a basis for allocating an expense. In its 
November 1, 1994, response to these questions, Rita failed to explain 
its methodology and failed to document the basis for allocating its 
costs. Because Rita failed to explain how its costs were allocated 
among flower types and because the amounts reported for cost of goods 
sold, selling expenses, and general and administrative expenses 
reported in Table 2D conflicted with data reported in Rita's financial 
statements, for the preliminary results we disregarded Rita's reported 
cultivation costs, general and administrative expenses, and indirect 
expenses, and calculated an amount based on Rita's financial 
statements. We applied the relative percentage of these costs to sales 
found in the financial statements in Rita's response with the 
presumption that all flowers have the same relative cost of production.
    Because Rita has not been able to substantiate from information 
already on the record that each flower type has a substantially 
different cost of production, we continue to apply the methodology used 
in the preliminary results for these final results.
    Comment 70: Papagayo argues that the Department used an incorrect 
set of U.S. price and constructed value tables for the preliminary 
results. According to the respondent, it inadvertently submitted 
incorrect tables in its supplemental questionnaire response, but 
submitted what it believed were corrected tables later. However, 
Papagayo comments that it appears that it mixed up the tables when 
submitting the ``corrected'' responses. Specifically, Papagayo requests 
that the Department correct the following for certain importers: gross 
sales value and volume totals, additional movement expenses, indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the home market for U.S. sales, quantities 
shipped, and domestic inland freight for U.S. sales. The respondent 
also claims that one ``importer'' the Department included in its 
preliminary results is not actually a U.S. importer. In sum, Papagayo 
claims that, if the Department makes the changes that respondent has 
provided, the Department will have a correct version of the tables.
    Department's Position: Because we received Papagayo's request that 
we correct its response after publication of our preliminary results 
and the alleged errors were not apparent from the record, we have 
applied the six criteria explained in the BACKGROUND section of this 
notice. We find that Papagayo failed to meet one of these criteria in 
that it did not provide supporting documentation for these alleged 
errors. Therefore, we did not make the changes requested for certain 
importers. However, we could determine from information Papagayo 
presented, and in accordance with our six criteria, that one 
``importer'' was not a U.S. importer, so we deleted that importer's 
tables for these final results. In all other respects, we have used in 
these final results the same tables we used in our preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the following percentage 
weighted-average margins to exist for the 5th, 6th, and 7th 
administrative reviews:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Producer/exporter                                    5th        6th        7th   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia....................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Agrex de Oriente...............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
AGA Group......................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      10.43
    Agricola la Celestina                                                                                       
    Agricola la Maria                                                                                           
    Agricola Benilda Ltda                                                                                       
Aricola Acevedo Ltda...........................................................       1.02       4.65       2.69
Agricola Arenales Ltda.........................................................       2.06       3.18       3.32
Agricola Benilda...............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      10.43
Agricola Bonanza Ltda..........................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Agricola Circasia Ltda.........................................................      16.23       1.70       2.01
Agricola de los Alisos.........................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Agricola el Cactus.............................................................       2.39       2.15       1.67
Agricola el Redil..............................................................       0.53       0.54       0.45
Agricola Guali S.A.............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)

[[Page 42866]]

                                                                                                                
Agricola Jicabal...............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Agricola la Corsaria...........................................................       5.34       3.18       1.88
Agricola las Cuadras Group.....................................................       1.72       4.72       2.23
    Agricola Las Cuadras Ltda                                                                                   
    Flores de Hacaritama                                                                                        
Agricola La Siberia............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      32.42
Agricola Malqui................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Agricola Monteflor Ltda........................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Agricola Uzatama...............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Agricola Yuldama...............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Agrobloom Ltda.................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Agrodex Group..................................................................       1.14       0.34       1.14
    Agricola El Retiro Ltda.                                                                                    
    Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.                                                                                   
    Agrodex Ltda.                                                                                               
    Degaflores Ltda.                                                                                            
    Flores Camino Real Ltda.                                                                                    
    Flores de la Comuna Ltda.                                                                                   
    Flores De Las Mercedes Ltda.                                                                                
    Flores De Los Amigos Ltda.                                                                                  
    Flores De Los Arrayanes Ltda.                                                                               
    Flores De Mayo Ltda.                                                                                        
    Flores Del Gallinero Ltda.                                                                                  
    Flores Del Potrero Ltda.                                                                                    
    Flores Dos Hectareas Ltda.                                                                                  
    Flores De Pueblo Viejo Ltda.                                                                                
    Flores El Puente Ltda.                                                                                      
    Flores El Trentino Ltda.                                                                                    
    Flores La Conejera Ltda.                                                                                    
    Flores Manare Ltda.                                                                                         
    Florlinda Ltda.                                                                                             
    Inversiones Santa Rosa ARW Ltda.                                                                            
    Horticola El Triunfo                                                                                        
    Horticola Montecarlo Ltda.                                                                                  
Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Group...............................................       4.45       2.10       1.90
    Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.                                                                            
    Celia Flowers                                                                                               
    Passion Flowers                                                                                             
    Primo Flowers                                                                                               
    Temptation Flowers                                                                                          
Agrokoralia....................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Agromonte Ltda.................................................................       7.97       1.88       3.16
Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda....................................................       3.11      12.45       6.84
Aspen Gardens..................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       7.75
Astro Ltda.....................................................................      (\1\)      19.20      18.74
Bali Flowers...................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Becerra Castellanos y Cia......................................................       2.86       0.28      62.79
Bloomshare.....................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Bojaca Group...................................................................      76.60      20.20       0.21
    Agricola Bojaca                                                                                             
    Plantas y Flores                                                                                            
        Tropicales (``Tropiflora'')                                                                             
    Universal Flowers                                                                                           
Bogota Flowers.................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Caicedo Group..................................................................       0.49       0.71       0.57
    Agro Bosque, S.A.                                                                                           
    Aranjuez S.A.                                                                                               
    Exportaciones Bochica S.A.                                                                                  
    Floral Ltda.                                                                                                
    Flores Del Cauca                                                                                            
    Inversiones Targa Ltda.                                                                                     
    Productos El Zorro                                                                                          
Cantarrana Group...............................................................       3.37      21.56       7.97
    Cantarrana Ltda.                                                                                            
    Agricola Los Venados Ltda.                                                                                  
Ciba Geigy.....................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Cienfuegos Group...............................................................       5.43       3.34       8.69
    Cienfuegos Ltda.                                                                                            
    Flores La Conchita                                                                                          
Cigarral Group.................................................................       5.30      41.84      49.39
    Flores Cigarral                                                                                             
    Flores Tayrona                                                                                              
Claveles Colombianas Group.....................................................       2.30       1.11       1.50

[[Page 42867]]

                                                                                                                
    Claveles Colombianos Ltda.                                                                                  
    Fantasia Flowers Ltda.                                                                                      
    Splendid Flowers Ltda.                                                                                      
    Sun Flowers Ltda.                                                                                           
Claveles De Los Alpes Ltda.....................................................       1.16       6.84       3.87
Claveles Tropicales de Colombia................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Colflores......................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Colibri Flowers Ltda...........................................................       3.62       2.39       5.01
Colony International Farm......................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Combiflor......................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       0.35
Conflores Ltda.................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Cultiflores Ltda...............................................................      (\2\)       0.00       5.87
Cultivos el Lago...............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Cultivos Medellin Ltda.........................................................       4.98       0.02       3.97
Cultivos Miramonte Group.......................................................       0.36       0.00       2.08
    Cultivos Miramonte S.A.                                                                                     
    Flores Mocari S.A.                                                                                          
Cultivos Tahami Ltda...........................................................       4.30       0.02       1.15
Daflor Ltda....................................................................       0.29       1.15      (\2\)
De la Pava Guevara e Hijos Ltda................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.....................................................       2.57      24.46       8.65
Diveragricola..................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Dynasty Roses Ltda.............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
El Antelio S.A.................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Envy Farms Group...............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       0.00
    Envy Farms                                                                                                  
    Flores Marandua Ltda.                                                                                       
Expoflora Ltda.................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Exporosas......................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Falcon Farms De Colombia S.A. (formerly Flores de Cajibio Ltda.)...............       0.00       0.00       0.20
Farm Fresh Flowers Group.......................................................       1.42       0.81       1.70
    Agricola de la Fontana                                                                                      
    Flores de Hunza                                                                                             
    Flores Tibati                                                                                               
    Inversiones Cubivan                                                                                         
Fernando de Mier...............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Flor Colombiana S.A............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      62.79
Flora Bellisima Ltda...........................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flora Intercontinental.........................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Floralex Ltda..................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Florandia Herrera Camacho y Cia................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Floraterra Group...............................................................       7.76       4.59       4.66
    Flores Casablanca S.A.                                                                                      
    Flores San Mateo S.A.                                                                                       
    Siete Flores S.A.                                                                                           
Floreales Group................................................................      (\1\)      10.76       6.10
    Floreales                                                                                                   
    Kimbaya                                                                                                     
Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda...............................................       0.67      14.05       8.19
Flores Acuarela S.A............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores Aguila..................................................................       0.04      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores Ainsuca Ltda............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       5.65
Flores Alfaya Ltda.............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores Andinas.................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores Arco Iris...............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores Aurora Ltda.............................................................       0.11       1.07       0.08
Flores Bachue..................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores Balu....................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores Carmel S.A..............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       2.53
Flores Catalina................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores Colon Ltda..............................................................       1.14       4.01       2.08
Flores Comercial Bellavista Ltda...............................................       3.46       0.38       2.14
Flores de Aposentos Ltda.......................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       2.77
Flores de Fragua...............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores de la Montana...........................................................       6.71       0.12       5.13
Flores de la Parcelita.........................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores de la Pradera...........................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores de la Vega Ltda.........................................................       3.56       0.21       1.69
Flores de la Vereda............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores del Campo Ltda..........................................................       5.38       4.31       4.82
Flores del Lago Ltda...........................................................       4.20       0.17       1.99
Flores del Pradro..............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores del Rio Group...........................................................       0.10       6.96      10.37

[[Page 42868]]

                                                                                                                
    Agricola Cardenal S.A.                                                                                      
    Flores Del Rio S.A.                                                                                         
    Indigo S.A.                                                                                                 
Flores de Oriente..............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       3.34
Flores Depina Ltda.............................................................       9.97       0.00       6.24
Flores de Serrezuela Ltda......................................................       1.67       0.34       0.21
Flores de Suba.................................................................       9.39       4.76       6.42
Flores de Tenjo Ltda...........................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores el Lobo.................................................................      (\2\)      16.52       2.35
Flores el Majui................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores el Molino S.A...........................................................       0.29       1.07       5.37
Flores el Rosal Ltda...........................................................      25.05       8.63       3.90
Flores el Zorro Ltda...........................................................       8.84       6.98       2.57
Flores Estrella................................................................      76.60      76.60      (\2\)
Flores Galia Ltda..............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores Gicro Group.............................................................       6.40       7.00       6.93
    Flores Gicro Ltda                                                                                           
    Flores de Colombia                                                                                          
Flores Guaicata Ltda...........................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores Hacienda Bejucol........................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Flores Juanambu Ltda...........................................................       0.80       1.72       2.30
Flores Juncalito Ltda..........................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores la Fragrancia...........................................................      11.04      27.14      13.50
Flores la Gioconda.............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       3.51
Flores la Lucerna..............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores la Macarena.............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia.............................................       0.70       0.00       0.00
Flores las Caicas..............................................................      29.83      45.82      14.51
Flores las Mesitas.............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Flores los Sauces..............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       1.97
Flores Magara..................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores Monserrate Ltda.........................................................       1.69       4.69       2.22
Flores Mountgar................................................................      76.60      76.60      (\2\)
Flores Naturales...............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores Petaluma Ltda...........................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores Ramo Ltda...............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores Rio Grande..............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Flores S.A.....................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores Sagaro..................................................................       0.33       3.53       3.29
Flores Sairam Ltda.............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Flores San Carlos..............................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Flores San Juan S.A............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       5.31
Flores Santa Fe Ltda...........................................................       3.07       4.76       4.96
Flores Santa Lucia.............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores Selectas................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Flores Silvestres..............................................................       2.43       0.11       2.04
Flores Tejas Verdes Ltda.......................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Flores Tiba S.A................................................................       1.24       3.55       0.52
Flores Tocarinda...............................................................       0.00       0.60       0.76
Flores Tomine Ltda.............................................................       2.76       0.27       2.35
Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group..........................................       0.96       2.99       2.14
    Flores Tropicales Ltda.                                                                                     
    Happy Candy Ltda.                                                                                           
    Mercedes Ltda.                                                                                              
    Rosas Colombianas Ltda.                                                                                     
Florex Group...................................................................       6.74       7.09       6.97
    Agricola Guacari                                                                                            
    Flores Altamira S.A.                                                                                        
    Flores de Exportacion S.A.                                                                                  
    Santa Helena S.A.                                                                                           
    Flores del Salitre Ltda.                                                                                    
    S.B. Talee de Colombia                                                                                      
Floricola La Gaitana S.A.......................................................       0.03       0.56       5.02
Florimex Colombia Ltda.........................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Florval........................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       5.98
Fribir Ltda....................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Funza Group....................................................................       0.04       0.42       0.69
    Flores Alborada                                                                                             
    Flores de Funza S.A.                                                                                        
    Flores del Bosque Ltda.                                                                                     
Green Flowers..................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      19.67
Groex S.A......................................................................      76.60      76.60      (\1\)
Grupo Andes....................................................................       3.81       0.35       0.22

[[Page 42869]]

                                                                                                                
    Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.                                                                                   
    Flores De Los Andes Ltda.                                                                                   
    Flores Horizante Ltda.                                                                                      
    Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.                                                                             
Grupo el Jardin................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       0.45
    Agricola el Jardin Ltda.                                                                                    
    La Marotte S.A.                                                                                             
    Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.                                                                                    
Guacatay Group.................................................................       3.62       3.57       4.95
    Agricola Guacatay S.A.                                                                                      
    Jardines Bacata Ltda.                                                                                       
Hacienda Susata................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      76.60
Horticultura El Molino.........................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
HOSA Group.....................................................................       0.45       0.12       0.74
    Horticultura De La Sabana S.A.                                                                              
    Innovacion Andina S.A.                                                                                      
    Minispray S.A.                                                                                              
    HOSA Ltda.                                                                                                  
    Prohosa Ltda.                                                                                               
Industrial Agricola Ltda.......................................................       0.65       2.99        (2)
Ingro Ltda.....................................................................       8.87       0.05       1.43
Inpar..........................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Interflora Ltda................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Inter Flores Ltda..............................................................        (2)        (2)      76.60
Internacional Flowers..........................................................        (2)        (2)      76.60
Invernavas.....................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Inverpalmas....................................................................       1.14      12.23       3.82
Inversiones Almer Ltda.........................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Inversiones Cota...............................................................        (2)        (2)        (1)
Inversiones el Bambu Ltda......................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Inversiones Flores del Alto....................................................        (2)        (2)      76.60
Inversiones Morcote............................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Inversiones Morrosquillo.......................................................        (2)        (2)       4.71
Inversiones Nativa Ltda........................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda....................................................      14.09      16.89      14.62
Inversiones Supala S.A.........................................................        (2)       3.94       3.89
Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda................................................        (2)        (2)      30.59
Iturrama S.A...................................................................      18.85       7.89        (1)
Jardin.........................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Jardines de America............................................................        (2)        (2)      14.81
Jardines del Muna..............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
La Florida.....................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
La Plazoleta Ltda..............................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Las Amalias Group..............................................................       9.18       4.59       3.80
    Las Amalias S.A.                                                                                            
    Pompones Ltda.                                                                                              
    La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.                                                                              
    Ramiflora Ltda.                                                                                             
Linda Colombiana Ltda..........................................................       1.53       2.42       1.55
Las Flores.....................................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Los Geranios Ltda..............................................................       7.84       0.92       2.12
Luisa Flowers..................................................................        (2)        (2)        (1)
Manjui Ltda....................................................................        (1)       0.02       0.14
Maxima Farms Group.............................................................       0.95       0.83       0.24
    Agricola los Arboles S.A.                                                                                   
    Polo Flowers                                                                                                
    Rainbow Flowers                                                                                             
Monteverde Ltda................................................................       5.73       5.51       5.24
Naranjo Exportaciones e Importaciones..........................................        (2)        (2)      76.60
Natuflora Ltda./San Martin Bloque B............................................       2.12       1.33       1.69
Oro Verde Group................................................................       2.45       1.66       0.37
    Inversiones Miraflores S.A.                                                                                 
    Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.                                                                                  
Papagayo Group.................................................................       7.82      15.21       9.96
    Agricola Papagayo Ltda.                                                                                     
    Inversiones Calypso S.A.                                                                                    
Petalos De Colombia Ltda.......................................................      14.86       4.20       4.09
Pisochago Ltda.................................................................        (2)        (2)       5.77
Plantaciones Delta Ltda........................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Plantas Ornamentales De Colombia S.A...........................................       0.13       4.77      76.60
Plantas S.A....................................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Proflores Ltda.................................................................        (2)        (2)       0.00
Propagar Plantas...............................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Queen's Flowers Group..........................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60

[[Page 42870]]

                                                                                                                
    Queen's Flowers De Colombia Ltda.                                                                           
    Jardines De Chia Ltda.                                                                                      
    Jardines Fredonia Ltda.                                                                                     
    Agrodindustrial del Rio Frio                                                                                
    Flores Canelon                                                                                              
    Flores del Hato                                                                                             
    Flores La Valvanera Ltda.                                                                                   
    M.G. Consultores Ltda.                                                                                      
    Flores Jayvana                                                                                              
    Flores el Cacique                                                                                           
    Flores Calima                                                                                               
    Flores la Mana                                                                                              
    Flores el Cipres                                                                                            
    Flores el Roble                                                                                             
    Flores del Bojaca                                                                                           
    Flores el Tandil                                                                                            
    Flores el Ajibe                                                                                             
    Flores Atlas                                                                                                
    Floranova                                                                                                   
    Cultivos Generales                                                                                          
Rosaflor.......................................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Rosales de Colombia Ltda.......................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Rosalinda Ltda.................................................................        (2)        (2)        (1)
Rosas de Colombia..............................................................        (1)        (1)        (1)
Rosas Sabanilla Group..........................................................       0.23       0.52       0.46
    Flores La Colmena Ltda.                                                                                     
    Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.                                                                                       
    Inversiones La Serena                                                                                       
    Agricola La Capilla                                                                                         
Rosas Tesalia..................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Rosas y Flores Ltda............................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Rosex Ltda.....................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Rosicler Ltda..................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Sabana Flowers.................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Sabana Group...................................................................       7.89       2.59       3.48
    Flores de la Sabana S.A.                                                                                    
    Roselandia                                                                                                  
Sansa Flowers..................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Santa Rosa Group...............................................................       1.88       2.97       0.96
    Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.                                                                                     
    Floricola la Ramada Ltda.                                                                                   
Santana Flowers Group..........................................................       0.26       2.14      (\2\)
    Hacienda Curubital                                                                                          
    Inversiones Istra                                                                                           
    Santana Flowers                                                                                             
Senda Brava Ltda...............................................................      12.37       0.10       1.57
Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.................................................       3.91       0.22       0.00
Siempreviva....................................................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Soagro Group...................................................................       9.78      13.23       5.81
    Argicola el Mortino Ltda.                                                                                   
    Flores Aguaclara Ltda.                                                                                      
    Flores del Monte Ltda.                                                                                      
    Flores la Estancia                                                                                          
    Jaramillo y Daza                                                                                            
Sunset Farms...................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
Superflora Ltda................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       6.28
Sweet Farms....................................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\1\)
Tag Ltda.......................................................................       0.31       0.64       3.38
Tempest Flowers................................................................      76.60      76.60      76.60
The Beall Company (Beall's Roses)..............................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Tinzuque Group.................................................................       5.48       0.07       0.01
    Tinzuque Ltda.                                                                                              
    Catu S.A.                                                                                                   
Toto Flowers Group.............................................................       1.34       1.98       0.09
    Flores de Suesca S.A.                                                                                       
    Toto Flowers                                                                                                
The Tuchany Group..............................................................       0.59       0.50       0.83
    Tuchany S.A.                                                                                                
    Flores Sibate S.A.                                                                                          
    Flores Munya S.A.                                                                                           
    Flores Tikaya Ltda.                                                                                         
Uniflor Ltda...................................................................       6.14       1.11       3.78
Velez de Monchaux Group........................................................       4.38       6.20       5.10

[[Page 42871]]

                                                                                                                
    Velez De Monchaux e Hijos Y                                                                                 
    Cia. S. en C.                                                                                               
    Agroteusa                                                                                                   
Victoria Flowers...............................................................       0.76       2.33       1.74
Villa Cultivos Ltda............................................................      (\2\)      (\2\)       3.37
Vuelven Ltda...................................................................      (\2\)       4.20      4.69 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No U.S. sales during this review period.                                                                    
\2\ No review requested for this period.                                                                        


    The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between United States price and foreign market value may vary from the 
percentages as stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, 
on or after the publication date of these final results of review: (1) 
The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the most 
recent rates as listed above; (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 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 will 
be the ``all other'' rate of 3.10 percent. This is the rate established 
during the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also 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 the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning 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. These administrative reviews 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: August 9, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-20931 Filed 8-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P