[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 241 (Friday, December 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65522-65527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-403-801]


Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway, Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On September 26, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic 
salmon from Norway. The review covers 24 exporters, and the period 
April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received, we determine the dumping margins for two of the 
reviewed exporters, Skaarfish A/S (Skaarfish) and Norwegian Salmon A/S 
(Norwegian Salmon), have changed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4106, or 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Background

    On September 26, 1995, the Department published the preliminary 
results (60 FR 49579) of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway (April 12, 
1991, 56 FR 14920). The Department has now completed this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is fresh and chilled 
Atlantic salmon (salmon). It encompasses the species of Atlantic salmon 
(Salmo salar) marketed as specified herein; the subject merchandise 
excludes all other species of salmon: Danube salmon; Chinook (also 
called ``king'' or ``quinnat''); Coho (``silver''); Sockeye 
(``redfish'' or ``blueback''); Humpback (``pink''); and Chum (``dog''). 
Atlantic salmon is whole or nearly whole fish, typically (but not 
necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and cleaned, with the head on. The 
subject merchandise is typically packed in fresh water ice (chilled). 
Excluded from the subject merchandise are fillets, steaks, and other 
cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or 
otherwise processed Atlantic salmon. Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon 
is currently provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
subheading 0302.12.00.02.09. The HTS item number is provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.

Cost of Production and Foreign Market Value

    We calculated the cost of production (COP) of salmon sold by each 
exporter based on the sum of the following: (1) The simple average of 
farmers' costs of cultivation (COC) (which included the cost of 
materials, fabrication, wellboat services, general expenses of the 
farmer, and any applicable fees); (2) processing expenses; and (3) each 
exporter's general expenses. The total COP was calculated on a 
Norwegian kroner per kilogram (NOK/kg) basis.
    Based on the comments presented by both respondents and petitioner, 
and after further consideration and review, we have revised certain 
costs as detailed in the comments below.
    We calculated foreign market value (FMV) based on c.i.f., duty paid 
prices to unrelated third country purchasers. We deducted, where 
appropriate, third country inland freight, air freight, inland/marine 
insurance, Norwegian export taxes, brokerage and handling, inland 
freight in Norway, and third country import duties. We made 
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in 
credit, commissions, and warranty expenses.

[[Page 65523]]

United States Price

    We calculated the United States Price (USP) based on the price from 
the Norwegian exporter to unaffiliated parties where these sales were 
made prior to importation into the United States, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act.
    We calculated the USP based on packed, ex-factory prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
Norwegian export taxes, U.S. duties, and air freight in accordance with 
section 772(d)(2) of the Act. No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
results. We received timely comments from two of the respondents, 
Skaarfish Group and Norwegian Salmon, and the petitioner, the Coalition 
for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade (FAST).

General Comments

    Comment 1: Respondents contend that in establishing each 
respondent's cost of production the Department should use the 
acquisition prices from the unrelated fish farms rather than the 
farmer's cost of cultivation. By using the farmer's cost of 
cultivation, the respondents contend that the Department is departing 
from its practice of relying on acquisition prices in establishing COP 
when the supplier is not related to the respondent. Respondents claim 
that the Department erred in determining that fish farmers are the 
producers of the subject merchandise. According to respondents, the 
fish farmers produce live salmon, which respondents consider to be an 
input of the subject merchandise and outside the scope of the dumping 
order. Respondents claim that the live salmon input is transformed into 
merchandise covered by the scope of the order only through processing 
by the respondents. Respondents cite Consolidated International 
Automotive, Inc. v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 125, 128 n. 4 (CIT 
1992) to demonstrate that, unless the sale of the input is by a related 
party, the courts uphold the use of acquisition prices in determining 
COP for a respondent.
    Petitioner argues that the Department properly used the farms' 
costs of cultivation to establish the subject merchandise's cost of 
production. Petitioner points out that the Department rejected these 
same arguments in past administrative reviews and should continue to 
reject the argument that salmon is an input into the subject 
merchandise as there are no new facts or legal authority to justify a 
change in approach.
    Department's Position: We consider the live salmon, produced by the 
fish farmers and sold to exporters such as Skaarfish and Norwegian 
Salmon, to be the same merchandise as is covered by the antidumping 
duty order, but at an earlier stage of production. Accordingly, live 
salmon is not an input but rather identical merchandise before it has 
been made ready for sale and shipment. Consequently, respondents' 
reliance on the Consolidated International Automotive decision is 
misplaced.
    As was found in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and 
first administrative review, Skaarfish continues to process a portion 
of its fish farm-sourced live salmon by gutting, cleaning, and 
packaging it. Norwegian Salmon, and in some cases Skaarfish, purchase 
and resell salmon that is already gutted and cleaned by the fish 
farmers. There is no transformation of merchandise outside the scope of 
the order to merchandise within the scope of the order as suggested by 
respondents. Instead, respondents are acting primarily as a reseller by 
merely preparing the merchandise for trans-Atlantic shipment. To 
determine the cost of producing salmon, Commerce properly reviewed 
respondents' costs as well as the fish farms' cost of cultivation.
    Comment 2: The respondents argue that if the Department continues 
to use its cost of production methodology, the Department should 
develop an alternate methodology for selecting salmon farms. They 
contend that the current methodology is designed to determine the 
hypothetical costs of growing live salmon in Norway rather than to 
determine the salmon costs of a specific respondent. Furthermore, they 
allege that the methodology gives no consideration to the burdens 
placed on the respondents resulting from the investigation of unrelated 
live salmon suppliers. They further allege that inconsistent selection 
practices occurred when the Department chose not to sample the farms of 
one respondent, but chose to sample the farms of the other respondent. 
Respondents argue that the Department should adopt a standard selection 
methodology that does not place a financial burden on the respondents.
    Petitioner argues that the Department's sampling methodology is 
correct. Petitioner points out that the Department's methodology 
ensured that farms were proportionately represented based on the 
quantity of salmon supplied to each respondent. Petitioner argues that 
the statute supports the Department's decision to sample one respondent 
and not another.
    Department's Position: We disagree with respondents. Respondents 
are incorrect to contend that the current methodology is designed to 
determine the hypothetical costs of growing live salmon in Norway 
rather than to determine the salmon costs of a specific respondent. By 
choosing to sample only those farms that supplied each exporter, the 
Department is ensuring that the calculated costs of growing live salmon 
are representative of that specific exporter.
    The Department is aware that all administrative reviews place a 
degree of burden on respondent firms. The Department intends to keep 
those burdens manageable for both the respondents and itself. Under 
section 777A of the Act, the Department has the discretion to sample 
respondents. In deciding whether to sample, the Department determined 
that it was both administratively necessary and methodologically 
appropriate to sample among the 50 salmon farmers that supplied 
Skaarfish A/S, but unnecessary to sample the nine salmon farmers that 
supplied Norwegian Salmon.
    Comment 3: Respondents argue that the Department's use of best 
information available (BIA) should be revised to realistically reflect 
the unique circumstances present in the review. Respondents contend 
that they have no leverage over unrelated suppliers who have no 
interest in the antidumping administrative review. Thus, the unrelated 
suppliers have no incentive to supply confidential cost data. 
Respondents propose that non-responding farms should be disregarded 
from the sample. Alternatively, they argue that as BIA, the Department 
should use the average COC of the responding farms rather than the COC 
of the highest farm. Respondents point to Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. 
v. United States, 28 F.3d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1994) to demonstrate that the 
Department has the authority to adopt different approaches when 
applying BIA.
    Petitioner contends that the Department correctly applied BIA to 
the unique circumstances of this review. Petitioner contends that the 
salmon farmers do have a significant interest at stake in participating 
in antidumping reviews. The salmon farmers are aware of the effect that 
failing to respond has on the exporter's ability to sell their salmon 
to the United States.
    Department's Position: For Norwegian Salmon, we applied BIA to six 
of the

[[Page 65524]]

nine farms, because those six did not submit questionnaire responses. 
For Skaarfish, we applied BIA to four of the 13 farm selections, 
because those four did not submit questionnaire responses. We chose as 
BIA the highest calculated COC of the responding farms and applied that 
COC to each of the nonresponding farms.
    Under section 776(c) of the Act, the Department has the authority 
to use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable 
to produce information requested.'' Thus, the Department may resort to 
BIA not only when a party ``refuses,'' but also when a party is 
``unable'' to provide the requested information, for whatever reason. 
The Allied Signal decision to which respondents refer affirmed the 
Department's application of BIA to a non-recalcitrant party which was 
unable to provide requested data.
    The elimination of non-responding farms from the sample, as 
respondents advocate, would reward non-responding farms and could 
encourage non-compliance in future reviews. Moreover, it would impair 
the integrity of the sample because it would detract from the 
randomness of the results. Therefore, we continue to apply the same BIA 
rules applied in the preliminary results.
    Comment 4: Respondents argue that the Department should apply the 
50-90-10 rule used with highly perishable products rather than the 10-
90-10 rule in determining when to disregard below-cost sales from the 
calculation of FMV. Respondents contend that salmon is a highly 
perishable product and that the salmon industry cannot respond quickly 
to changing market conditions and must sell the salmon when the salmon 
reach maturity. Respondents cite Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables from 
Mexico, 45 FR 20512 (March 28, 1980) (Vegetables); Fall Harvested Round 
White Potatoes from Canada, 48 FR 51669 (November 10, 1983) and Fresh 
Cut Flowers from Mexico, 55 FR 12696 (April 5, 1990) to support their 
position.
    Petitioner contends that the Department correctly applied the 10/
90/10 test because the subject merchandise is not a highly perishable 
product as defined by the Department in Vegetables. Petitioner points 
out that, unlike Vegetables, the respondents in this case can control 
the time of sale of the subject merchandise. In addition, the subject 
merchandise is alive and not deteriorating at the time of the sales 
transaction.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. As we have 
explained in prior reviews of this order, under the 10/90/10 test, we 
do not disregard sales if less than 10 percent are below cost and made 
over an extended period of time; we disregard sales only if between 10 
and 90 percent are below cost, and we disregard all sales if more than 
90 percent are below cost. In past cases, the Department has used the 
50/90/10 test in cases involving highly perishable agricultural 
products. Under a 50/90/10 test, the Department would not disregard any 
below-cost sales unless more than 50 percent of sales were below cost.
    We believe that fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon is not a highly 
perishable product. As we found in the original LTFV investigation and 
first administrative review, farmers have the ability to control the 
time of sale of their output without materially affecting the quality 
of the merchandise. It is not unusual for farmers to delay sales for an 
extended period of time until they receive a favorable price offer. 
Moreover, exporters have the ability to coordinate future salmon 
purchases with farmers to coincide with demand and processing 
capabilities. Accordingly, application of the 50-90-10 rule is not 
relevant in this case.
    Comment 5: Norwegian Salmon and petitioner maintain that the 
Department should correct a computer error in the margin calculations 
for Norwegian Salmon where an expense, of a proprietary nature, was 
incorrectly deducted twice from foreign market value.
    Department's Position: We agree and have corrected this clerical 
error by eliminating the double deduction.
    Comment 6: Respondent argues that the Department used the incorrect 
tax methodology to adjust for Norwegian export tax in the preliminary 
results for Norwegian Salmon.
    Petitioner claims that the Department simply did not subtract 
Norwegian Salmon's export tax from its reported U.S. sales prices.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner and corrected this 
error. Section 772 of the Act and section 353.41 of the Department's 
regulations state that the export tax should be subtracted from U.S. 
price. See 19 U.S.C. 1677a(d)(2)(B) and 19 C.F.R. 353.41(d)(2)(ii).
    Comment 7: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly 
stated in its September 26, 1995, Analysis Memorandum that there were 
no third country sales below cost and, therefore, there were no 
disregarded sales. However, according to the computer program, sales 
were disregarded because Norwegian Salmon made third country sales 
below the cost of production.
    Norwegian Salmon contends that the Department incorrectly compared 
Norwegian Salmon's third country sales to the cost of production on a 
month-by-month basis rather than on a POR-model basis. Respondent 
claims that the Department's computer program treats each month as a 
model rather than comparing the one model of salmon to the COP for the 
entire POR.
    Department's position: We agree with both petitioner and 
respondent. The Department incorrectly stated in the Analysis 
Memorandum that there were no sales below the cost of production and, 
therefore, there were no disregarded sales. Rather, the cost test 
results indicated that third country sales made below cost should be 
disregarded in its calculations for the preliminary results. For the 
final results, however, we discovered that the calculation of above- 
and below-cost data, used in the preliminary results, was inaccurate 
due to an error in the computer program. This error has been corrected 
for these final results.
    Also, the Department did incorrectly treat each month of the POR as 
a model, as asserted by respondent. The Department has corrected this 
error. Sales of salmon are now compared to the cost of production on a 
POR basis.

Norwegian Salmon Farm Specific Issues

Farm B
    Comment 8: Petitioner contends that the Department's calculations 
understated the feed costs for Farm B because they failed to 
incorporate revised information contained in the verification report.
    Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly stated and 
allocated feed costs for Farm B. Respondent contends that the lower 
feed costs used by the Department in its preliminary results are 
correct because we also revised the total harvest weight of the 1992 
generation salmon downward.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. In its preliminary 
results, the Department failed to use the revised, higher total feed 
costs that were based on information gathered at verification. This 
error has been corrected. The respondent is incorrect that the revised 
harvest quantities affect the total feed costs Farm B incurred. See 
Farm B, Verification of Cost of Production, December 12, 1994.
    Comment 9: Petitioner contends that there were no costs reported 
for the 1992 generation salmon sold in calendar year 1994. As a result, 
the net production quantity for Farm B was overstated due to the fact 
that there

[[Page 65525]]

were 1992 generation salmon sales in 1994, but no associated 1994 costs 
reported for the 1992 generation salmon. Petitioner advocates using 
only the total quantity of 1992 generation salmon that was produced in 
1992 and 1993 in the COC calculation.
    Norwegian Salmon contends that the salmon sold in 1994 were 
produced in 1992 and 1993. According to Norwegian Salmon, the COC 
figures already include costs for the salmon that were sold in 1994, 
and therefore no adjustment is needed.
    Department's Position: We agree in part with both petitioner and 
respondent. Petitioner is correct that there are no costs reported for 
those 1992 generation salmon sold in 1994. However, as respondent 
pointed out, the costs associated with the 1992 generation were 
reported for 1992 and 1993. The net production quantities do not need 
to be modified since the quantities produced in 1992 and 1993 and their 
respective costs are not in question. Therefore to make the production 
costs and production quantities correspond to the same period of time, 
we corrected the total harvest quantity by eliminating the 1992 
generation salmon harvested in 1994.
    Comment 10: Petitioner contends that an extraordinary expense item 
found in Farm B's 1993 general ledger should be included in Farm B's 
1993 cost calculations just as a similar 1992 extraordinary expense 
item found in its 1992 general ledger was included in Farm B's 1992 
cost calculations.
    Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly excluded the 
extraordinary expense item in the calculation of Farm B's COC. 
Respondent argues that Farm B, participating in its first 
administrative review, incurred an extraordinary expense when it could 
not collect on accounts receivable as a result of the Norske 
Fiskeoppdretternes Salgslag (FOS) bankruptcy in 1991. Thus, respondent 
claims that this extraordinary expense, although appearing in 1993's 
general ledger, does not affect the COC of the 1992 generation salmon 
under review.
    Department's Position: We agree in part with both the petitioner 
and respondent. The petitioner is correct that since the extraordinary 
expense appears in Farm B's general ledger as an expense, it should 
increase Farm B's COC. While respondent classifies this expense as an 
``extraordinary''expense, it clearly does not meet the generally 
accepted definition of an extraordinary expense. According to generally 
accepted accounting practices, write-down and write-off of receivables 
and inventory are not extraordinary because they relate to normal 
business operational activities. Following the practice set in Fresh 
and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, (58 FR 37912), comment 18, these expenses are 
not considered extraordinary and are included as a component of the 
cost of cultivation. This expense, however, is clearly not related to 
the 1992 generation salmon under review since the FOS bankruptcy 
occurred before the 1992 generation salmon were put in the water. If 
Farm B was involved in a previous review where this bad debt expense 
was associated with the generation of salmon under review, the expense 
would be included in the COC of that POR. Therefore, we excluded this 
expense from the COC for the products currently under review.
    Comment 11: Petitioner contends that several overhead cost items 
reported by Farm B should be added to, and not excluded from, costs 
associated with the 1992 generation under review.
    Norwegian Salmon contends that the Department correctly allowed 
certain overhead cost items to be deducted from Farm B's cost of 
cultivation.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondent. Although the 
Department did not verify these specific journal entries, we verified 
the accuracy and integrity of Farm B's audited financial statements, of 
which these specific entries are a part. Thus, in accepting the whole, 
we accept the individual entries as presented by the respondent, unless 
otherwise noted.
Farm C
    Comment 12: Petitioner contends that the indemnity reported by Farm 
C was not correctly reflected in the COC calculations. Petitioner 
claims that the indemnity should be allocated to both 1991 and 1992 
generation salmon rather than to just 1992 generation salmon. 
Furthermore, if the indemnity is accepted by the Department, the 
associated loss must also be accounted for in the cost calculations.
    Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly deducted and 
allocated Farm C's indemnity. Respondent states that the indemnity was 
not allocated to the 1991 generation because 1991 generation salmon 
were at another location and were not affected by the underwater 
detonations which caused the salmon loss. Respondent states that all 
costs associated with the loss of salmon were fully accounted for in 
Farm C's COC.
    Department's Position: We note that Farm C received an indemnity to 
compensate it for damage caused to its salmon farm by underwater 
detonations. We agree that the indemnity was correctly allocated only 
to the 1992 generation as the 1991 generation was kept at a different 
location and not affected by these underwater detonations. However, we 
failed to include Farm C's salmon loss, as it appears in its 1993 
financial statements, in its COC calculations. We have corrected this 
oversight by offsetting the indemnity received by the loss claimed in 
Farm C's 1993 income statement.
    Comment 13: Petitioner contends that according to the October 28, 
1994, supplemental questionnaire response and Farm C's verification 
report, the Department used incorrect feed costs and marketing expenses 
for Farm C.
    Department's position: The Department agrees and has used the 
revised feed costs and marketing expenses found in the October 28, 
1994, supplemental questionnaire response and Farm C's verification 
report in the cost of cultivation calculation.

Skaarfish Farm Specific Issues

Farm A
    Comment 14: Petitioner contends that the smolt costs that we used 
in our calculations for Farm A were understated because the credit 
costs incurred by the related smolt supplier of Farm A were not 
included in the analysis.
    Skaarfish maintains that Farm A did not understate the costs of 
financing the smolt purchases from its related supplier. Respondent 
argues that under the terms of delivery, if Farm A was granted a longer 
period of time for payment, the financing cost associated with that 
longer period was reflected in the higher unit price for the smolt.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The Department 
verified the unit price of smolt purchased from Farm A's supplier. In 
an arm's length transaction, those prices reflect the total costs 
incurred by Farm A. We, therefore, used the respondent's reported smolt 
prices in the calculation of Farm A's cost of cultivation.
    Comment 15: Petitioner contends that the Department should use the 
smolt costs contained in the Farm A verification report rather than the 
smolt costs found in Farm A's general ledger.
    Respondent argues that the two smolt amounts differ because the one 
in the verification report includes the 20 percent value-added tax 
while the amount found in the general ledger does not.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. As noted in the 
verification

[[Page 65526]]

report, the correct smolt expense is found in the general ledger, net 
of the value-added tax.
Farm E
    Comment 16:  Petitioner contends that the Department should use the 
smolt costs discovered at verification for Farm E.
    Respondent maintains that Farm E correctly accounted for its smolt 
costs. Respondent maintains that the amount petitioner is arguing in 
favor of includes the value-added tax which does not belong in the 
Department's cost calculations.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The correct smolt 
expense is found in the general ledger, net of the value-added tax.
Farm G
    Comment 17: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly did 
not include any processing costs for Farm G.
    Department's Position: We agree and have included the appropriate 
processing costs for Farm G. We also discovered that an incorrect 
processing cost was used for the farms that did not submit processing 
costs. We replaced the processing cost used in the preliminary results 
with the adjusted processing cost provided by Skaarfish in its August 
11, 1994 submission.
    Comment 18: Petitioner contends that the Department should not 
allow the use of warranty expense data submitted by Skaarfish during 
verification because it is new and unsolicited information. 
Furthermore, petitioner claims that the use of this information 
constitutes a double counting of warranty expenses. To demonstrate the 
double counting, petitioner points to the August 25, 1994, 
questionnaire response where Skaarfish stated: ``To the best of our 
knowledge and belief there were no warranty expenses for sales to 
France during the POR. In any event, a warranty will normally result in 
a credit-note/price-reduction to the customer and is therefore covered 
by the reported unit prices.''
    Skaarfish argues that the Department has a long-standing policy to 
accept corrections of previously submitted information at verification. 
The error in reporting warranty expense information was a result of a 
misunderstanding between company officials in France regarding what 
constituted a warranty expense. Respondent claims that the error did 
not amount to a comprehensive error or misstatement of fact, nor was 
the information hidden or misrepresented during verification (citing 
Disposable Pocket Lighters From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
22359, 22365 (May 5, 1995).) Furthermore, respondent argues that there 
is no evidence on the record to suggest a similar warranty expense on 
U.S. sales.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent. At verification 
Skaarfish discovered that there was a misunderstanding concerning 
warranty expenses in the compilation of its questionnaire response. To 
correct the mistake, Skaarfish submitted third country warranty expense 
data at verification. It is the Department's practice to accept 
corrections of previously submitted information at verification as long 
as those errors are not comprehensive or exhibit a systematic 
misstatement of fact. (See Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, From 
the People's Republic of China, 58 F.R. 7537 (February 8, 1993).) 
Furthermore, the Department verified the accuracy of the French 
warranty data.
    Comment 19: Petitioner contends that the Department should correct 
the methodology Skaarfish used to allocate depreciation costs. 
Petitioner argues that Skaarfish allocated depreciation expenses to 
common areas and to non-production activities such as parking lots. 
Petitioner proposes that the Department re-allocate depreciation costs 
based on the relative space occupied by Skaarfish's production lines.
    Department's Position: We agree, in part with petitioner. 
Respondents incorrectly allocated depreciation expenses. However, 
basing the allocation of all depreciation expenses on a square-meter 
basis, as proposed by petitioner, neglects the level of financial 
investment required for the various production activities. Therefore, 
for these final results we allocated costs associated with the 
depreciation of machinery and equipment on the basis of the 
relationship of costs of processing salmon to all other products. The 
costs associated with the depreciation of buildings were allocated on 
the basis of square meters. This methodology more accurately reflects 
the amount of depreciation expense to be allocated to subject 
merchandise and is the methodology used in the first administrative 
review. (See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 58 FR 37912).

Final Results of Review 

    As a result of comments received and programming errors corrected, 
we have revised our preliminary results and determine that the 
following margins exist for the period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 
1994:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABA A/S......................................................     *31.81
Artic Group..................................................    **31.81
Artic Products Norway A/S....................................     *31.81
Brodrene Sirevag A/S.........................................     *23.80
Cocoon Ltd A/S...............................................     *31.81
Delfa Norge A/S..............................................     *31.81
Delimar A/S..................................................        ***
Deli-Nor A/S.................................................        ***
Fjord Trading LTD. A/S.......................................     *23.80
Fresh Marine Co. Ltd.........................................    **31.81
Greig Norwegian Salmon.......................................    **31.81
Harald Mowinckel A/S.........................................     *23.80
Imperator de Norvegia........................................     *31.81
More Seafood A/S.............................................     *31.81
Nils Willksen A/S............................................     *31.81
North Cape Fish A/S..........................................     *31.81
Norwegian Salmon A/S.........................................      18.65
Norwegian Taste Company A/S..................................    **31.81
Olsen & Kvalheim A/S.........................................     *23.80
Sekkingstad A/S..............................................     *23.80
Skaarfish-Mowi A/S...........................................       2.28
Timar Seafood A/S............................................     *31.81
Victoria Seafood A/S.........................................    **31.81
West Fish Ltd. A/S...........................................     *23.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments during the period; margin from the last administrative   
  review.                                                               
** No response; highest margin from the original LTFV investigation.    
*** No shipments or sales subject to this review; the firm had no       
  individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.                  

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions concerning all respondents 
directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed firms 
will be the rates indicated 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 LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 
any previous review conducted by the Department or the LTFV 
investigation, the cash deposit

[[Page 65527]]

rate will be 23.80 percent, the all others rate from the LFTV 
investigation.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: December 4, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-31590 Filed 12-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P