[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