[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16772-16782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8958]



[[Page 16772]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-301-602]


Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from 
Colombia for the period March 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value (NV) by various companies subject to this review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess 
antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price 
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. We invite interested 
parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement 
of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The deadlines 
for submission of argument are listed at the end of this notice. All 
memoranda referred to in this notice can be found in the public reading 
room, located in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main 
Department of Commerce building.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Showers or Roy A. Malmrose, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3217 or (202) 482-5414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations 
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    On March 4, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia. See 
61 FR 8238. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), on April 22, 1996, we 
initiated an administrative review of this order. See 61 FR 17685. On 
August 21, 1996, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we extended the deadline for these preliminary 
results until March 31, 1997. See 61 FR 43229. From February 17 through 
March 1, 1997, we verified the responses of seven respondents. The 
Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with 
section 751 of the Act.
    Imports covered by this review 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 remains 
dispositive.
    The period of review is March 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.
    In this administrative review, 473 companies were either named in 
the initiation notice or were affiliated with a company named in the 
initiation notice. We have separated these companies into the following 
categories: companies providing full responses (selected and non-
selected); companies claiming they had no shipments during the POR; 
companies claiming they were bankrupt without responding further; 
companies that did not respond at all or that submitted a response 
after the deadline for submission of questionnaire responses; companies 
to which we were unable to deliver the questionnaire (i.e., unlocatable 
companies); and companies for which we are rescinding this review.

Respondent Selection

    Unlike past administrative reviews of this order, this one is being 
conducted under statutorily mandated deadlines. On September 20, 1996, 
the Department issued a memorandum proposing to limit the number of 
exporters and producers examined in this review. The memorandum also 
proposed specific sampling methodologies. The Department invited 
interested parties to comment on both the proposal to limit the number 
of exporters and producers and the specific sampling methodologies 
described in the memorandum. Comments were submitted by the Floral 
Trade Council, the Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores 
(``Asocolflores''), the HOSA Group, and the Caicedo Group. After 
considering these comments, on November 21, 1996, the Department 
decided to limit the number of respondents examined.
    Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides the Department with the 
authority to determine margins by limiting its examination to a 
statistically valid sample of exporters or the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. This subparagraph 
is formulated as an exception to the general rule that each company for 
which a review is requested will be individually examined and receive a 
calculated margin. Since the resources available to the Department are 
limited, we found it administrably necessary to restrict the number of 
respondents selected for examination in order to conduct thorough and 
accurate analyses of responses to our questionnaires and other relevant 
issues within the statutory deadlines. Restricting the number of 
respondents for examination is consistent with other past cases 
involving large numbers of potential respondents, statutory deadlines 
and limited resources. See, for example, Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1344 (January 
19, 1996) and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10, 1996).
    Therefore, given the large number of producers and/or exporters 
involved in the review and the Department's limited resources, the 
Department limited its examination to the 13 groups of exporters and 
producers accounting for the largest volume of flowers, in accordance 
with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. These exporters accounted for 
approximately 50 percent by volume of the exports made during the POR 
by the companies and groups of companies that responded to our 
questionnaire. These 13 respondents are the Agrodex Group 
(``Agrodex''); Caicedo Group (``Caicedo''); Claveles Colombianos

[[Page 16773]]

Group (``Clavecol''); Cultivos Miramonte Group (``Cultivos 
Miramonte''); Floraterra Group (``Floraterra''); Flores Colon, Ltda 
(``Flores Colon''); Florex Group (``Florex''); Guacatay Group 
(``Guacatay''); HOSA Group (``HOSA''); Maxima Farms Group (``Maxima 
Farms''); Queens Flowers Group (``Queens''); Tinzuque Group 
(``Tinzuque''); and Tuchany Group (``Tuchany''). For further discussion 
on the issues of limiting the number of respondents and the selection 
of respondents, see the Memorandum from Team to Barbara R. Stafford, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated November 21, 
1996.

Affiliated Companies

    During the course of this review, we examined closely the 
relationships between the selected respondents and other producers/
exporters listed in our notice of initiation. Based on this 
examination, we concluded that one of Guacatay's importers was 
affiliated. Guacatay complied with our request to report sales by this 
importer as CEP sales.
    In addition to our examination, several respondents filed responses 
on behalf of affiliated companies which were either not listed in the 
initiation notice, or were listed as independent companies in the 
initiation notice. On May 10, 1996, Asocolflores informed us that 
``Caico'' was the same as the Caicedo Group. Therefore, while CAICO, 
the Caico Group and the Caicedo Group, are listed separately in our 
initiation notice, we are treating them as part of the same group. On 
October 1, 1996, respondent HOSA identified the five companies included 
in the HOSA Group. One of these companies, Innovacion Andina S.A., had 
been listed separately in our initiation. We are now listing it solely 
under the HOSA Group. In addition, both Agrodex and Queens submitted 
responses on behalf of more companies than were named in the initiation 
notice. We have included those companies in their respective groups.
    With respect to the respondents other than the 13 selected 
respondents, we received the following information on affiliation. On 
May 10, 1996, respondents informed us that ``Agromonte Ltda'' was the 
same company as ``Flores Agromonte.'' Therefore, we have listed this 
company under its appropriate name, Flores Agromonte. In our 
initiation, we listed Floricola la Ramada Ltda. twice, once under the 
Santa Rosa Group and once by itself. Based on information received by 
respondents on July 19, 1996, we have now listed it only one time, 
under the Santa Rosa Group. Also, Agricola Benilda Ltda was mentioned 
twice in our initiation. It now appears only under the Aga Group. On 
August 5, 1996, Asocolflores informed us that Flores la Union/Santana 
is actually simply ``Santana'' and is a farm of Flores la Union Gomez 
Arago & Cia. Therefore, we are treating Santana as part of the Flores 
la Union Gomez Arago & Cia Group. Finally, the Bojaca Group, Floralex 
Group, Funza Group and Soagro Group responded on behalf of more 
affiliated companies than were named in the initiation notice. The 
companies affiliated with these groups are now listed as reported by 
the respondents.

Non-Selected Respondents

    This is the first administrative review of any antidumping order in 
which the Department reviewed only the largest exporters, pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. When, as in this case, only the largest 
exporters are selected and each given an individually calculated 
margin, there remain a number of exporters for whom an individual 
margin cannot be calculated. The statute is silent on how the margins 
should be calculated for these remaining non-selected respondents.
    In this ninth review, we face the unusual situation of having 
requested full responses from all firms prior to our decision to review 
only the largest. We have assigned the non-selected, cooperative 
respondents a weighted-average margin based on the calculated margins 
of selected respondents, excluding any de minimis margins and margins 
based on facts available. Given the unique circumstances of this case, 
using the weighted-average margin is most consistent with the general 
structure of the statute. Further, although this is clearly not a 
nonmarket economy case, we have faced analogous situations in certain 
NME investigations where we were unable to examine all of the 
respondents. The methodology employed here is the same as that which we 
have used in those NME investigations. See, e.g., Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 14725 (March 20, 1995) and Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake 
Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10, 
1996). The firms in question are listed under ``Non-Selected 
Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section below.

No Shipments

    We received responses from 64 firms indicating that they did not 
ship during the POR. We reviewed information from Customs listing all 
companies who had entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Since 
40 of the companies that stated they had no shipments also did not 
appear on Customs data as having entries during the POR, we 
preliminarily determine that they did not ship during the POR. 
Consistent with our practice in previous reviews of this order, for 
those companies that did not ship during the POR which had previously 
been reviewed or investigated, their cash deposit rate will continue to 
be the company-specific rate published for the most recently reviewed 
period. For those companies that did not ship during the POR and which 
had not been previously reviewed or investigated, their cash deposit 
rate will be the ``all-others'' rate. These 40 firms are listed under 
``No Shipments'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section below. 
For those 24 companies which stated that they had not shipped during 
the POR, but which did appear on the Customs data as having entries 
during the POR, we preliminarily determine that these companies have 
failed to cooperate with the proceeding. Therefore, we are applying an 
adverse facts available rate of 76.60 percent to these companies. We 
will, however, seek further information from these respondents and from 
Customs to determine whether these entries during the POR actually 
related to sales outside of the POR. These 24 companies are included 
under ``Non-Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section 
below.

Unlocatable Companies

    We initiated reviews for 116 firms which could not be located in 
spite of our requests for assistance from such diverse sources as the 
Floral Trade Council (``FTC''), Asocolflores, the American Embassy in 
Bogota, and the U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, we were unable to 
conduct administrative reviews for these firms. Consistent with our 
practice in past administrative reviews of this order, we will assess 
duties on these firms in the following manner. For those unlocatable 
companies that were examined in a previous review, we will assess 
duties based on their company-specific rate from the most recent 
review. If we have not previously conducted a review of an unlocatable 
company, duties equal to the ``all others'' rate of 3.53 percent from 
the Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV) investigation will be assessed. The 
firms

[[Page 16774]]

in question are listed under ``Unlocatable'' in the Preliminary Results 
of Review section below.

Rescissions

    Subsequent to the publication of our initiation notice, we received 
timely withdrawals of review requests from Agricola La Montana and My 
Flowers. Because there were no other requests for review for these 
companies from any other interested parties, we are rescinding this 
review with respect to these two companies in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1). In addition, we received information on the record that 
Flower Factory, Hill Crest Gardens, Sunbelt Florals, and Eldorado 
Trading Corp were importers and not producers/exporters. Consequently, 
we are terminating the review with respect to these four firms.

Request To Preserve Revocation Eligibility

    Under the current regulations, as amended by the interim 
regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995, the 
Department may revoke an order in part if: (1) One or more producers or 
resellers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less 
than foreign market value for a period of at least three consecutive 
years; (2) it is not likely that those persons will in the future sell 
the merchandise at less than foreign market value; and (3) the 
producers or resellers agree in writing to their immediate 
reinstatement in the order if the Department determines, subsequent to 
their revocation, that they have sold subject merchandise at less than 
foreign market value. See 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2). Since all requests for 
review in the eighth review period were withdrawn, the ninth review can 
only be the first of any three consecutive years. On November 27, 1996, 
seven producers/exporters of subject merchandise, who were not among 
the 13 selected, requested that they be included in this review so as 
to preserve their eligibility for possible revocation in the eleventh 
review.
    The statute, at section 751(d)(1), states that Commerce ``may 
revoke, in whole or in part, a countervailing or antidumping duty 
order,'' (emphasis added). Therefore, the Department is under no 
obligation to provide for the possibility of revocation to these or any 
companies under the order. However, we recognize that the request by 
the seven respondents to preserve their revocation eligibility presents 
certain fundamental equity considerations. While we are unable to 
include these seven producers/exporters in this review, we intend to 
address their concerns. Therefore, we are considering several options 
concerning the appropriate way to allow for the possibility of future 
partial revocations in this order, while taking into account the 
Department's limited resources and the requirement that a company be 
verified in order to be revoked. Among others, we are considering the 
following three options. First, we could allow companies to make the 
claim, retrospectively, that they have not dumped for the past three 
years in the form of a ``changed circumstances'' review in the eleventh 
review (i.e., the first review in which revocations will be possible 
under this order). Second, we could allow a group of companies to claim 
prospectively that they will have zero or de minimis margins for the 
next three years and examine a random sample of each such group in each 
of the next reviews (i.e., beginning in the tenth review). Finally, we 
could allow a group of companies to claim prospectively that they will 
have zero or de minimis margins for the next three years and examine 
certain elements of each respondent's data (rather than a random sample 
of all respondents). We invite parties to comment on these options, as 
well as any others that take into account the above considerations. For 
further discussion on this issue, see Memorandum from Team to Robert S. 
LaRussa, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
February 21, 1997.

Verification

    Section 782(i) of the Act requires the Department to verify all 
information relied upon in making a final determination in a review 
under section 751(a), if no verification was made during the two 
immediately preceding reviews. Therefore, we verified only those 
companies that were not verified in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From 
Colombia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 
FR 42833 (August 19, 1996) (``Flowers 1991-94''). As provided in 
section 782(i)(3)(B) of the Act, we verified information provided by 
the following respondents, using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site examination of relevant sales and financial records, 
and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information: Caicedo, Clavecol, Floraterra, Maxima Farms, Flores Colon, 
Queens, and Tuchany.

Duty Absorption

    On March 29, 1996, the petitioner requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by respondents 
during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the 
Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative review 
initiated two or four years after publication of the order, whether 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter 
subject to the order, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United 
States through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer 
or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Act by the URAA. The 
Department's interim regulations do not address this provision of the 
Act.
    For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the 
Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section 
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping regulations 
provides that the Department will make a duty absorption determination, 
if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. 
See 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 1996). The preamble to the proposed 
antidumping regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be 
considered initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998 
will be considered initiated in the fourth year. Id. at 7308, 7317. 
Although these proposed antidumping regulations are not yet binding 
upon the Department, they do constitute a public statement of how the 
Department expects to proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the 
amended statute. This approach assures that interested parties will 
have the opportunity to request a duty absorption determination on 
entries for which the second and fourth years following an order have 
already passed, prior to the time for sunset review of the order under 
section 751(c). Because the order on certain fresh cut flowers from 
Colombia has been in effect since 1986, this is a transition order. 
Consequently, based on the policy stated above, it is appropriate for 
the Department to examine duty absorption in this ninth review, which 
was initiated in 1996.
    The statute, at section 751(a)(4), provides that duty absorption 
may occur if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. Of the selected respondents, the 
following have affiliated importers: Agrodex, Caicedo, Clavecol, 
Cultivos Miramonte, Floraterra, Florex, Guacatay, HOSA, Maxima Farms, 
Queens and Tuchany. Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that 
there are dumping margins for the following companies with respect to 
the percentages of their U.S. sales by quantity indicated below:

[[Page 16775]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Name of company                     Percentage of U.S. affiliated importer sales with margin      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agrodex...................................                                                                 13.71
Caicedo...................................                                                                   100
Clavecol..................................                                                                 19.66
Cultivos Miramonte........................                                                                 24.71
Floraterra................................                                                                 24.32
Florex....................................                                                                 13.06
Guacatay..................................                                                                 27.98
HOSA......................................                                                                 21.73
Maxima Farms..............................                                                                 31.37
Queens....................................                                                                 18.97
Tuchany...................................                                                                 22.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of Caicedo, we are unable to calculate a margin based 
on its response and have therefore determined its dumping margin 
entirely on the basis of facts available. In such cases, we assume duty 
absorption on all sales. With respect to those companies (with 
affiliated importers) whose margins are not determined based on facts 
available, we presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales 
which were dumped, unless there is evidence (e.g., an agreement between 
the affiliated importer and the unaffiliated purchaser) that the 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the full duty 
ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. Although in this case 
certain companies have provided invoices which separately list an 
amount for estimated antidumping duties which they are charging their 
unaffiliated purchasers, none of these companies has presented evidence 
of agreements with unaffiliated purchasers to pay ultimately assessed 
antidumping duties. Under these circumstances, therefore, we 
preliminarily find that the antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the above-listed firms on the percentage of U.S. sales indicated.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Act states that if necessary information 
is not available on the record, the Department ``shall, subject to 
section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.'' Section 782(e) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information 
that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the 
determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements 
established by the Department if: (1) The information is submitted by 
the deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be 
verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve 
as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the 
interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements 
established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5) 
the information can be used without undue difficulties. Accordingly, in 
using the facts available, the Department may disregard information 
submitted by a respondent if any of the five criteria has not been met.
    In circumstances where the Department determines that the use of 
facts available is appropriate, the Department must then determine 
whether an adverse inference is warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that, where the Department ``finds that an interested party 
has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with a request for information,'' the Department ``may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.''
    For purposes of this review, certain companies received the 
Department's initial questionnaire, but either failed to respond 
entirely or responded after the deadline for submission without 
providing an explanation. Consequently, we must apply facts available. 
Further, as we determine that their failure to respond either entirely 
or in a timely fashion constitutes a failure to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of their ability, we will apply an adverse inference in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. For all these companies, 
we have applied as adverse facts available the highest rate for any 
company from this or any prior segment of this proceeding. This rate is 
76.60 percent. The companies in question are listed under ``Non-
Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section below.
    We are also applying an adverse facts available rate to exports 
made by the Oro Verde Group, consisting of Inversiones Miraflores S.A. 
and Inversiones Oro Verde S.A. The group responded to our original 
questionnaire only by stating that it did have small shipments during 
the POR and that it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Our supplemental 
questionnaire was returned as undeliverable. We find that this group 
did not fully respond to our questionnaire. Therefore, consistent with 
our treatment of bankrupt companies in Flowers 1991-94 and our 
preliminary determination that the company did not cooperate to the 
best of its ability, we are applying to the Oro Verde Group a rate of 
7.85 percent which is the higher of the highest rate ever applied to 
the group, or the highest rate calculated for any other company in this 
review. See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated March 7, 1997.
    Finally, we are applying an adverse facts available rate to one 
selected respondent, Caicedo. Although Caicedo provided information we 
requested which was necessary for our analysis, the majority of the 
information could not be verified as required by section 782(i) of the 
Act. Caicedo was not adequately prepared for our verification of its 
response, although it had received the verification outline well in 
advance of the verification. While certain of the preselected sales 
were tied to company records, the majority of other items on the sales 
verification agenda did not. In collecting information on certain items 
requested, the company's ``support documentation'' did not tie to 
either the response or the company's internal records. Notably, Caicedo 
was unable to produce grower's reports (the main source document for 
reporting sales information) for several of the customers we chose to 
review. In attempting to verify its response we learned that Caicedo 
had incorrectly reported most of its sales data. For example, 
classification of sales as EP or CEP had not been based on the type of 
sales (i.e., fixed-price or consignment, as required by the 
questionnaire), but on where the customer made payment (i.e., to its 
related importer in Miami or to Caicedo in Bogota). In addition, 
Caicedo did not report the date of sale appropriately, using the date 
that payment was

[[Page 16776]]

received instead of the date the invoice was issued. The company also 
mis-reported international freight, brokerage and handling, and days 
outstanding for numerous customers. Furthermore, while the verification 
of Caicedo's cost data was more successful, we learned of several 
errors in its reporting of costs. The most significant error, Caicedo's 
failure to include an inflation adjustment to its amortized costs, 
prevents us from calculating a normal value for Caicedo because of lack 
of information on the record.
    Despite a question posed in a supplemental questionnaire concerning 
confusing or contradictory information on the classification of EP and 
CEP sales, and a statement at the beginning of the Miami verification 
that there seemed to be significant omissions in the field of 
international freight, Caicedo did not correct the errors in its sales 
response. The errors in the cost response were undetectable prior to 
verification. Moreover, despite extensive efforts during verification, 
neither the Department nor the company was able to correct the vast 
majority of these errors.
    Although information submitted by Caicedo's affiliated importer, 
Southern Rainbow Corporation, was verified, we are unable to use it 
because we find that the totality of information submitted by Caicedo 
was so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for 
determining any margin for Caicedo. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 782(e)(3) of the statute, we are declining to consider the 
information submitted by Caicedo.
    The Department has used facts available where a company has failed 
verification despite our attempts to verify. See e.g., Final Results: 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from France, et al., 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 1997) (``AFBs VI 
''); Preliminary Results: Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 61 FR 
65019 (December 10, 1996); Preliminary Results: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, 61 FR 51898 (October 4, 1996). 
Moreover, in AFBs VI, we concluded that a respondent did not act to the 
best of its ability when it was an experienced respondent in reviews of 
the order and when the questionnaire was not vague on the information 
requested. We reasoned that, in these circumstances, the respondent 
could reasonably be expected to know which types of essential data we 
request in each review, and to be conversant with the form and manner 
in which we require submission of the data. See 62 FR 2081, 2090.
    Like the situation described in AFBs VI, Caicedo is a large, 
sophisticated corporation that has participated in previous reviews of 
this order. The questionnaire was explicit in its instructions on the 
classification of EP and CEP customers, date of sale and amortization 
of costs. Furthermore, the inflation adjustment to amortization has 
been a standard element in previous reviews of this order and Caicedo 
could reasonably be expected to know how to report its costs. On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine that application of adverse facts 
available is warranted as Caicedo failed to cooperate by acting to the 
best of its ability. Consequently, we are assigning Caicedo a rate of 
25.58 percent, the highest rate ever applied to Caicedo in any portion 
of this proceeding. This rate was applied to Flores del Cauca (one of 
the farms of Caicedo). Consistent with the logic articulated in AFBs 
VI, we determine that this rate is sufficiently adverse to encourage 
full cooperation in future segments of the proceeding by ensuring that 
Caicedo does not benefit from its failure to cooperate fully (Statement 
of Administrative Action (``SAA''), at 200).
    Because the facts available information which we are using in this 
review constitutes secondary information, we are required under section 
776(c) of the Act to corroborate, to the extent practicable, the facts 
available from independent sources reasonably at our disposal. The SAA 
provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. (SAA, at id.) To corroborate the secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used. However, unlike other types of 
information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no 
independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for 
margins is administrative determinations and reviews. Thus, in an 
administrative review, if the Department relies upon a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding as facts 
available, the Department can normally be satisfied that the 
information has probative value and that it has complied with the 
corroboration requirements of section 776(i) of the Act. See AFBs VI, 
at 2087.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Under the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
below, we have included certain company-specific issues. For further 
discussion of these issues, See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. 
Moreland, Acting Deputy for Import Administration, dated March 12, 
1997.

United States Price

    Consistent with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act and Flowers 1991-94, 
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.
    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) 
of the Act, as appropriate. CEP was used for consignment sales through 
unaffiliated U.S. consignees and sales (consignment or otherwise) made 
through affiliated importers.
    We calculated EP based on the packed price, consisting of invoice 
price plus certain additional revenue, e.g., box charges and 
antidumping duties paid, (either f.o.b. Bogota, c.i.f. Miami or c.i.f. 
Chicago) to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates, foreign 
inland freight, international (air) freight, brokerage and handling, 
U.S. customs fees, and return credits.
    For sales made on consignment, CEP was calculated based on the 
packed price consisting of invoice price plus certain additional 
revenue, e.g., box charges and antidumping duties paid, charged by the 
consignee. For sales made through affiliated parties, CEP was based on 
the packed price, consisting of invoice price plus certain additional 
revenue, e.g., box charges and antidumping duties paid, to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made adjustments to 
these prices, where appropriate, for box charges, discounts and 
rebates, foreign inland freight, international (air) freight, brokerage 
and handling, U.S. customs fees, direct selling expenses (credit 
expense and contributions to the Colombian Flower Council) relating to 
commercial activity in the United States, return credits, royalties and 
indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market that related to 
commercial activity in the United States. Finally, consistent with our 
practice in Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 6980 (February 6, 1995), we made 
adjustments for either commissions paid to unrelated U.S. consignees or 
the indirect U.S. selling expenses of related consignees.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, the price was further 
reduced by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP.

[[Page 16777]]

The CEP profit rate was calculated using the expenses incurred by the 
responding companies on their sales of the subject merchandise in the 
United States and of the like product in the home market (for those 
companies that had home market sales) and the profit associated with 
those sales.
Tuchany
    We were unable to verify the interest rates on Tuchany's reported 
short-term U.S. loans during the POR; therefore, we were unable to 
verify Tuchany's reported U.S. interest rate. With the exception of 
this item, the response filed by Tuchany was verified. For this reason, 
in lieu of using the reported rate, we are using the rate which we 
observed for most of Tuchany's loans.

Normal Value

    Section 773 of the Act provides that the normal value (NV) of the 
subject merchandise shall be (1) the price at which the foreign like 
product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) 
for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent 
practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or 
constructed export price, (2) the price at which the foreign like 
product is sold (or offered for sale) for consumption in a country 
other than the exporting country or the United States (third country 
sales), or (3) the constructed value of that merchandise.
    Some companies in this review have sales in the home market of 
export quality flowers exceeding five percent of sales to the U.S. 
market, i.e., have a viable home market. However, consistent with our 
practice in previous reviews of this order and based on information 
provided by respondents, we have determined that these sales are not 
within the ordinary course of trade. For a further discussion, see 
Memorandum from Team to Barbara Stafford, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Import Administration, dated January 13, 1997.
    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act states that if the administering 
authority determines that the normal value of the subject merchandise 
cannot be determined using home market prices, then, notwithstanding 
the possible use of third country prices, the normal value of the 
subject merchandise may be the constructed value of that merchandise. 
We received comments and factual information concerning this issue from 
respondents on August 7, 1996, and from petitioner on October 23, 1996.
    We have used constructed value as the basis of normal value since 
the final results of the second antidumping duty administrative review 
of Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 55 FR 20491 (May 17, 1990). 
We based this determination on three factors: (1) the negative 
correlation of prices in third country markets to prices in the United 
States because of greater volatility and the sporadic nature of the 
U.S. market and differing peak price periods (holidays); (2) Colombian 
producers' relative lack of access to European markets; and (3) the 
perishability of the merchandise.
    In Flowers 1991-94, we stated that our analysis of the third 
country markets was sufficient for us to reject the use of third 
country prices, even though we had not collected third country prices 
from respondents. A significant factor in the analysis was the Botero 
study. The Botero study relied upon in the Flowers 1991-94 reviews 
demonstrated that third country prices were not reliable for purposes 
of foreign market value and was based upon data from the period 1982-
1989. The study has since been updated to cover the period 1989 through 
1995, which covers a portion of the POR. Based on the new Botero study, 
we find that differences in the demand patterns between the markets 
continue to exist and that seasonal demand and price cycles between the 
markets are statistically different.
    Relying on the recent economic data submitted by respondents and 
consistent with the Department's practice in prior segments of this 
proceeding, we have determined that a particular market situation 
prevents a proper comparison between third country sales and U.S. sales 
within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) of the Act. 
Therefore, we have continued to use CV as the basis for normal value. 
See Memorandum from Team to Barbara R. Stafford, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, dated November 21, 1996.
    We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We 
included the cost of materials and fabrication, and the selling, 
general and administrative expenses reported by respondents. The per-
unit constructed value was calculated by dividing the annual CV in 
pesos by the quantity of export quality flowers sold by the grower/
exporter. We converted the peso per stem CV based on the date of the 
U.S. sale, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. We consider 
non-export quality flowers (culls) that are produced in conjunction 
with export quality flowers to be by-products. Therefore, revenue from 
the sales of culls was offset against the cost of producing the export 
quality flowers.
    We based selling, general and administrative expenses on the 
amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product for consumption in the 
home market. Where respondents had no home market sales, we used the 
general and administrative expenses associated with their sales to all 
other markets. Regarding selling expenses, all respondents reporting 
sales of export quality flowers in the home market stated they had no 
selling expenses in that market. Therefore, as facts otherwise 
available, we did not include selling expenses for those respondents 
that had no home market sales.
    Regarding profit, we verified that for those producers/exporters 
with home market sales of culls and/or export quality flowers, those 
sales were outside the ordinary course of trade because they were made 
at below cost prices. Consequently, we are unable to apply the methods 
specified in section 773(e)(2)(A) or 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for 
calculating profit. Also, none of the respondents realized a profit on 
merchandise in the same general category as flowers produced for sale 
in Colombia. Therefore, we are not able to apply the profit methodology 
described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i).
    Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) permits the Department to use ``any other 
reasonable method'' to compute an amount for profit, provided that the 
amount ``may not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or 
producers * * * in connection with the sale, for consumption in the 
foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of 
products as the subject merchandise.'' Although we have sought 
information on the profits earned in Colombia by producers of 
merchandise that might be considered in the same general category of 
products as flowers in order to compute the ``profit cap'' described in 
773(e)(2)(B)(iii), we have not been able to find any such producers. 
Therefore, we do not have a profit cap.
    The SAA, at 171, anticipates this situation and directs that where 
Commerce cannot determine profit under the alternative methods 
described in sections 773(e)(2)(B)(i) and 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) or calculate 
a profit cap, the Department may apply 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) as the basis 
of facts available. The SAA further states that constructed value 
``must include an amount * * * for profit,'' (emphasis added). SAA, at 
169. We interpret this statement, particularly because of the

[[Page 16778]]

use of the words ``must'' and ``amount'' to mean that the profit figure 
used cannot be zero and must be positive. Therefore, as facts 
available, in this case we have developed a profit figure from the 
financial statements of a Colombian producer of agricultural and 
processed agricultural goods. We have preliminarily determined that it 
is appropriate to use the profit rate for that company, 5.00 percent of 
cost of production, for all respondents.
    We added U.S. packing to constructed value. In addition, for EP 
sales, we made circumstance of sale adjustments for direct expenses, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act.
Clavecol
    Clavecol stated that it experienced high water subsoil levels at 
one of its farms and requested that the Department adjust its costs for 
this water damage. While we do not feel it is appropriate to adjust 
total costs, we do agree that the severe water damage resulted in an 
unusual decrease in productivity. Therefore, we have normalized the 
production level to make an appropriate adjustment for this loss. 
Normalization of the production levels when severe circumstances of 
nature result in unusual losses of crop is consistent with the 
Department's past practice. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Ecuador, 60 FR 7019, 7038 
(February 6, 1995).
Flores Colon
    In accordance with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department 
will normally calculate costs on the basis of records kept by the 
exporter or producer of the merchandise, ``if such records are kept in 
accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the 
exporting country (or the producing country, where appropriate) and 
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of 
the merchandise.'' Flores Colon amortized its capitalized expenses over 
a period that is longer than the expected useful lives of the 
capitalized assets. This method of accounting results in assigning 
costs which should be recognized during the POR to future periods. 
Thus, the company's accounting methodology regarding capitalized 
expenses does not appropriately match those expenses with income 
generated from their use and, hence, does not reasonably reflect the 
costs associated with the production of the merchandise under review.
    Based on information gathered at verification, we have estimated 
the various types and corresponding amounts of expenses capitalized by 
Flores Colon from 1993 through 1995. We then amortized each expense 
category (adjusted for inflation) over a period consistent with the 
asset's expected useful life (e.g., two years for cuttings). This 
approach attempts to correct the distortion caused by the manner in 
which Flores Colon maintains its accounting records without penalizing 
the company for its unique accounting system.
HOSA
    In the company's original questionnaire response, HOSA calculated 
its per unit constructed value using sales of both export and national 
quality flowers. We asked HOSA to recalculate its constructed value 
deriving per unit costs based solely on sales of export quality 
flowers, in accordance with our long standing practice in these 
reviews. While HOSA complied with the Department's request, it objected 
strongly to this methodology.
    HOSA and Asocolflores raised the same objections in Flowers 1991-
94. We disagreed on the grounds that there was no change in the factual 
situation which would significantly alter our established treatment of 
cull, or national-quality, flowers. Based on the information provided 
in the current review, we are continuing to treat all home market sales 
of non-export quality flowers as culls, regardless of how they are 
designated under HOSA's internal grading system. Therefore, we are 
using the most recent data submitted by HOSA in which CV is calculated 
on the basis of sales of export quality flowers.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
Section 773 A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, 
unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. In accordance with the 
Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that a 
fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a 
benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling 
average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that 
a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of EP and CEP with NV, we 
preliminarily determine that there are margins in the amounts listed 
below for the period March 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.

Selected Respondents

    The following 13 groups of firms (composed of 97 companies) were 
selected as respondents and received individual reviews, as indicated 
below:


Agrodex Group.......................................       3.06 percent.
  Agricola de las Mercedes                                              
  Agricola el Retiro Ltda.                                              
  Agrodex Ltda.                                                         
  Degaflores Ltda.                                                      
  Flores Camino Real Ltda.                                              
  Flores Cuatro Esquinas Ltda.                                          
  Flores de la Comuna Ltda.                                             
  Flores de las Mercedes                                                
  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 Trentino Ltda.                                              
  Flores la Conejera Ltda.                                              
  Flores Manare Ltda.                                                   
  Florlinda Ltda.                                                       
  Horticola el Triunfo                                                  
  Horticola Montecarlo Ltda.                                            
Caicedo Group.......................................      25.58 percent.
  Agro Bosque S.A.                                                      
  Andalucia S.A.                                                        
  Aranjuez S.A.                                                         
  Columbiano S.A. ``CAICO''                                             
  Caico                                                                 
  Exportaciones Bochica S.A.                                            
  Floral Ltda.                                                          
  Flores del Cauca                                                      
  Inversiones Targa Ltda.                                               
  Productos el Zorro                                                    
  Via el Rosal                                                          
Claveles Colombianos Group..........................       1.13 percent.

[[Page 16779]]

                                                                        
  Claveles Colombianos Ltda.                                            
  Elegant Flowers Ltda.                                                 
  Fantasia Flowers Ltda.                                                
  Splendid Flowers Ltda.                                                
  Sun Flowers Ltda.                                                     
Cultivos Miramonte Group............................       2.30 percent.
  Cultivos Miramonte S.A.                                               
  Flores Mocari S.A.                                                    
Floraterra Group....................................       7.85 percent.
  Exporosas                                                             
  Floraterra S.A.                                                       
  Flores Casablanca S.A.                                                
  Flores San Mateo S.A.                                                 
  Siete Flores S.A.                                                     
Flores Colon Ltda...................................       4.46 percent.
Florex Group........................................       1.07 percent.
  Agricola Guacari S.A.                                                 
  Agricola el Castillo                                                  
  Flores San Joaquin                                                    
  Flores Altamira S.A.                                                  
  Flores de Exportacion S.A.                                            
Guacatay Group......................................       3.23 percent.
  Agricola Cunday                                                       
  Agricola Guacatay S.A.                                                
  Jardines Bacata Ltda.                                                 
Hosa Group..........................................       3.02 percent.
  Horticultura de la Sabana S.A.                                        
  HOSA Ltda.                                                            
  Innovacion Andina S.A.                                                
  Minispray S.A.                                                        
  Prohosa Ltda.                                                         
Maxima Farms Group..................................       4.41 percent.
  Agricola los Arboles S.A.                                             
  Colombian D.C. Flowers                                                
  Polo Flowers                                                          
  Rainbow Flowers                                                       
  Maxima Farms Inc.                                                     
Queens Flowers Group................................       2.15 percent.
  Agroindustrial del Rio Frio                                           
  Cultivos General Ltda.                                                
  Flora Nova                                                            
  Flora Atlas Ltda.                                                     
  Flores Calima S.A.                                                    
  Flores Canelon Ltda.                                                  
  Flores de Bojaca                                                      
  Flores del Cacique                                                    
  Flores del Hato                                                       
  Flores el Aljibe Ltda.                                                
  Flores el Cipres                                                      
  Flores El Pino Ltda.                                                  
  Flores El Roble S.A.                                                  
  Flores el Tandil                                                      
  Flores la Mana                                                        
  Flores las Acacias Ltda.                                              
  Flores la Valvanera Ltda.                                             
  Flores Jayvana                                                        
  Flores Ubate Ltda.                                                    
  Jardines de Chia Ltda.                                                
  Jardines Fredonia Ltda.                                               
  Jardines Piracanta                                                    
  M.G. Consultores Ltda.                                                
  Mountain Roses                                                        
  Queens Flowers de Colombia Ltda.                                      
  Quality Flowers S.A.                                                  
  Florval S.A. (Floval)                                                 
  Jardines des Rosal                                                    
Tinzuque Group......................................       0.99 percent.
  Tinzuque Ltda.                                                        
  Catu S.A.                                                             
Tuchany Group.......................................       6.37 percent.
  Tuchany S.A.                                                          
  Flores Sibate                                                         
  Flores Tikaya                                                         
  Flores Munya                                                          
                                                                        

Non-Selected Respondents

    The following 144 companies (including 22 groups of companies) were 
not selected as respondents and will receive a rate of 2.93 percent:

Aga Group
    Agricola la Celestina
    Agricola la Maria
    Agricola Benilda Ltda.
Agricola Acevedo Ltda.
Agricola Arenales Ltda.
Agricola Bonanza Ltda.
Agricola Circasia Ltda.
Agricola el Cactus S.A.
Agricola el Mortino Ltda.
Agricola el Redil Ltda.
Agricola la Corsaria Ltda.
Agricola Las Cuadras Group
    Agricola las Cuadras Ltda.
    Flores de Hacaritama
Agricola Megaflor Ltda.
Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group
    Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.
    Celia Flowers
    Passion Flowers
    Primo Flowers
    Temptation Flowers
Andes Group
    Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.
    Flores de los Andes Ltda.
    Flores Horizonte Ltda.
    Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.
Aspen Gardens Ltda.
Astro Ltda.
Cantarrana Group
    Cantarrana Ltda.
    Agricola los Venados Ltda.
Cigarral Group
    Flores Cigarral
    Flores Tayrona
Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.
Colibri Flowers Ltda.
Combiflor
Cultiflores Ltda.
Cultivos Medellin Ltda.
Cultivos Tahami Ltda.
Daflor Ltda.
El Antelio S.A.
Envy Farms Group
    Envy Farms
    Flores Marandua Ltda.
Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A. (formerly Flores de Cajibio Ltda.)
Farm Fresh Flowers Group
    Agricola de la Fontana
    Flores de Hunza
    Flores Tibati
    Inversiones Cubivan
Floralex Ltda.
    Floralex Ltda.
    Flores el Puente Ltda.
    Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.
Floreales Group
    Floreales Ltda.
    Kimbaya
Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.
Flores Agromonte
Flores Ainsuca Ltda.
Flores Aurora Ltda.
Flores Carmel S.A.
Flores Comercial Bellavista Ltda.
Flores de Aposentos Ltda.
Flores de la Hacienda
Flores de la Montana
Flores de la Sabana S.A.
Flores de la Vega Ltda.
Flores de la Vereda
Flores de Serrezuela S.A.
Flores de Suba Ltda.
Flores del Lago Ltda.
Flores del Rio Group
    Agricola Cardenal S.A.
    Flores del Rio S.A.
    Indigo S.A.
Flores de Oriente
Flores el Molino S.A.
Flores el Talle Ltda.
Flores el Zorro Ltda.
Flores Fusu
Flores Gioconda
Flores Juanambu Ltda.
Flores la Fragrancia
Flores las Caicas
Flores los Sauces
Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group
    Santana
Flores Monserrate Ltda.
Flores Sagaro
Flores San Andres
Flores San Juan S.A.
Flores Santa Fe Ltda.
Flores Silvestres
Flores Tocarinda
Flores Tomine Ltda.
Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group
    Flores Tropicales Ltda.

[[Page 16780]]

    Happy Candy Ltda.
    Mercedes Ltda.
    Rosas Colombianos Ltda.
Floricola la Gaitana S.A.
Fresh Flowers
Funza Group
    Flores Alborada
    Flores de Funza S.A.
    Flores del Bosque Ltda.
    Flexport de Colombia
Grupo el Jardin
    Agricola el Jardin Ltda.
    La Marotte S.A.
    Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.
Industrial Agricola
Ingro Ltda.
Inverpalmas
Inversiones Flores del Alto
Inversiones Morrosquillo
Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.
Inversiones Santa Rosa ARW Ltda.
Inversiones Supala S.A.
La Plazoleta Ltda.
Las Amalias Group
    Las Amalias S.A.
    Pompones Ltda.
    La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.
    Ramiflora Ltda.
Linda Colombiana Ltda.
Los Geranios Ltda.
Manjui Ltda.
Monteverde Ltda.
Natuflora Ltda./San Martin Bloque B
Papagayo Group
    Agricola Papagayo Ltda.
    Inversiones Calypso S.A.
Petalos de Colombia Ltda.
Pisochago Ltda.
Rosas Sabanilla Group
    Flores la Colmena Ltda.
    Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.
    Inversiones la Serena
    Agricola la Capilla
Santana Flowers Group
    Santana Flowers Ltda.
    Hacienda Curibital Ltda.
    Inversiones Istra Ltda.
Santa Rosa Group
    Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.
    Floricola la Ramada Ltda.
    Agropecuaria Sierra Loma
Senda Brava Ltda.
Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.
Soagro Group
    Flores Aguaclara Ltda.
    Flores del Monte Ltda.
    Flores la Estancia
    Jaramillo y Daza
Toto Flowers Group
    Flores de Suesca S.A.
    Toto Flowers
Uniflor Ltda.
Velez de Monchaux Group
    Velez De Monchaux e Hijos y Cia S. en C.
    Agroteusa
Victoria Flowers
Vuelven Ltda.

No Shipments

    The following 40 companies responded that they had no shipments 
during the POR. For those companies that were examined in a previous 
review, we will assess duties based on their company-specific rate from 
the most recent review. If we have not previously conducted a review of 
a company, duties equal to the ``all others'' rate of 3.53 percent from 
the Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV) investigation will be assessed.

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia
Agricola Guali S.A.
Agricola Yuldama
Agrorosas
Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.
De La Pava Guevara E Hijos Ltda.
Disagro
Expoflora Ltda.
Florandia Herrera Camacho & Cia.
Flores Acuarela S.A.
Flores Aguila
Flores Andinas Ltda.
Flores de Tenjo Ltda.
Flores del Campo Ltda.
Flores el Rosal Ltda.
Flores Galia Ltda.
Flores Gloria
Flores la Lucerna
Flores la Macarena
Flores Ramo Ltda.
Flores Sairam Ltda
Flores San Carlos
Flores Selectas
Flores Violette
Green Flowers
Inversiones Almer Ltda.
Inversiones Bucarelia
Inversiones Cota
Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.
Iturrama S.A.
Luisa Flowers
Otono (Agroindustrial Otono)
Planatas S.A.
Propagar Plantas S.A.
Rosaflor
Rosex Ltda.
Sansa Flowers
S.B. Talee de Colombia
Siempreviva
Tag Ltda

Unlocatable

    The following 116 companies (including 2 groups) were unlocatable. 
For those unlocatable companies that were examined in a previous 
review, we will assess duties based on their company-specific rate from 
the most recent review. If we have not previously conducted a review of 
an unlocatable company, duties equal to the ``all others'' rate of 3.53 
percent from the Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV) investigation will be 
assessed.

Achalay
Agricola Altiplano
Agricola del Monte
Agricola la Siberia
Agrocaribu Ltda.
Agro de Narino
Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.
Agropecuaria la Marcela
Agropecuria Mauricio
Agrotabio Kent
Aguacarga
Alcala
Amoret
A.Q.
Carcol Ltda.
Classic
Coexflor
Color Explosion
Cota
Crest D'or
Crop S.A.
Cypress Valley
Degaflor
Del Monte
Del Tropico Ltda.
Diveragricola
El Milaro
El Timbul Ltda.
Exotic Flowers
Exotico
Ferson Trading
Flamingo Flowers
Flor Colombiana S.A.
Flores Ainsus
Flores Alcala Ltda.
Flores Calichana
Flores Corola
Flores de Iztari
Flores de Memecon/Corinto
Flores del Cielo Ltda.
Flores del Cortijo
Flores Gicro Group
    Flores Gicro Ltda.
    Flores de Colombia
Flores Hacienda Bejucol
Flores la Cabanuela
Flores la Pampa
Flores las Mesitas
Flores Montecarlo
Flores Palimana
Flores S.A.
Flores Saint Valentine
Flores San Andres
Flores Santana
Flores Sausalito
Flores Sindamanoi
Flores Tenerife Ltda
Floricola
Florisol
Florpacifico
Four Seasons
Fracolsa
F. Salazar
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
Horticultura de la Sasan
Industrial Terwengel Ltda.
Inversiones Maya, Ltda.
Inversiones Silma
Inversiones Sima
Jardin de Carolina
Jardines Choconta
Jardines Darpu
Jardines Natalia Ltda.
Jardines Tocarema
J.M. Torres
Kingdom S.A.
La Colina
La Embairada
La Flores Ltda.
La Floresta

[[Page 16781]]

L.H.
Loma Linda
Loreana Flowers
Luisiana Farms
M. Alejandra
Mauricio Uribe
Merastec
Morcoto
Nasino
Olga Rincon
Piracania
Prismaflor
Reme Salamanca
Rosa Bella
Rosas y Jardines
Rose
San Valentine
Sarena
Select Pro
Shila
Solor Flores Ltda.
Starlight
Susca
Sweet Farms
The Beall Company
The Rose
Tomino
Villa Diana
Zipa Flowers

Non-Respondents

    The following 68 companies (including 2 groups of companies) did 
not respond to our questionnaire, or responded after the deadline date 
without explanation. We will assess duties based on the highest rate 
for any company from this or any prior segment of this proceeding. This 
rate is 76.60 percent.

Agrex de Oriente
Agricola de Occident
Agroindustrial Madonna S.A.
Alstroflores Ltda.
Ancas Ltda.
Arboles Azules Ltda.
Becerra Castellanos y Cia.
Bojaca Group
    Agricola Bojaca
    Universal Flowers
    Flores y Plantas Tropicales
    Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.
    Tropiflora
Cienfuegos Group
    Cienfuegos Ltda.
    Flores la Conchita
Clavelez
Consorcio Agroindustrial
Cultivos Guameru
Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.
Dynasty Roses Ltda.
Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen Tantau)
El Tambo
Euroflora
Exoticas
Exportadora
Flor y Color
Flora Intercontinental
Flores Abaco S.A.
Flores Bachue Ltda.
Flores Cerezangos
Flores Depina S.A.
Flores de Guasca
Flores de la Cuesta
Flores de la Maria
Flores del Tambo
Flores de la Parcelita
Flores el Lobo
Flores el Salitre Ltda.
Flores Flamingo Ltda.
Flores Juncalito Ltda.
Flores Monteverde
Flores Suasuque
Flores Tiba S.A.
Flores Urimaco
Florexpo
Florimex Colombia Ltda.
Flowers of the World/Rosa
Horticultura el Molino
Illusion Flowers
Industria Santa Clara
Inversiones Morcote
Inversiones Playa
Inversiones y Producciones Tecnicas
Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.
Jardines de America
Jardines de Timana
Karla Flowers
Las Flores
Laura Flowers
Pinar Guameru
Plantaciones Delta Ltda.
Rosales de Colombia Ltda.
Rosales de Suba Ltda.
Roselandia
San Ernesto
Santa Helena S.A.
Superflora Ltda.
Tropical Garden
Villa Cultivos Ltda.

Bankrupt Companies

    The following group of companies is preliminarily determined to be 
bankrupt and will be assessed at a rate of 7.85 percent.

Oro Verde Group
    Inversiones Miraflores S.A.
    Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing 
not later than ten days after publication of this notice. Interested 
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these 
preliminary results within 45 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may 
be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case 
briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the 
scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs 
and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.38(e).
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department 
will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific 
ad valorem antidumping duty rates based on the ratio of the total 
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made 
during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to 
calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all 
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. (This method 
for calculating the antidumping duty rate to be applied to each 
importer is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping 
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory 
NV and statutory EP or CEP, by the total statutory EP or CEP value of 
the sales compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference 
between EP or CEP and customs value for all merchandise examined during 
the POR. Individual differences between EP or CEP and NV may vary from 
the percentages stated above.)
    The Department will issue appraisement instructions on each 
exporter directly to the 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 
companies will be those rates established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer 
of the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 3.10 percent, the 
adjusted ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the

[[Page 16782]]

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22(c)(5).

    Dated: March 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-8958 Filed 4-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P