[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5354-5360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2482]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-301-602]
Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results and
Partial Termination 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 is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia for
the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the normal value 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 or
constructed export price and the normal value (NV). For certain
companies who have requested that we rescind their requests for review,
we have granted that request.
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
[[Page 5355]]
Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa Jeong or Marian Wells, Office of
AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1278 or 482-6309, 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 of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR
part 353 (April 1997).
Background
On March 7, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' with
respect to the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from
Colombia. See 62 FR 10521. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), on
April 15, 1997, we initiated an administrative review of this order.
See 62 FR 18312. On October 15, 1997, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we extended the deadline for these preliminary
results until January 26, 1998. See 62 FR 53593. From December 8
through December 16, 1997, we verified the responses of one respondent,
the Caicedo Group. The Department has conducted this administrative
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
The scope of the order under review is 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). Although the HTS numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
is dispositive. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1996 through
February 28, 1997.
Respondent Selection
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 exporters accounting for the
largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be
examined. This subparagraph is formulated as an exception to the
general requirement of the Act that each company for which a review is
requested will be individually examined and receive a calculated
margin. In this administrative review, 424 companies were either named
in the initiation notice or have been identified as being affiliated
with a company named in the initiation notice.
Because of the large number of companies involved in the review and
the limited resources available to the Department, we determined that
it was administratively necessary to restrict the number of respondents
selected for examination. This enabled us to conduct thorough and
accurate analyses of the responses to our questionnaires and other
relevant issues within the statutory deadlines. Restricting the number
of respondents for examination is consistent with the most recent
administrative review of this order and other past cases involving
large numbers of potential respondents, statutory deadlines and limited
resources. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 16772 (April 8, 1997) (Flowers Ninth
Review); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1344 (January 19, 1996); 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 Department limited its examination in the present review to ten
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 over 30 percent by volume of the total exports
made during the POR to the United States from Colombia. Therefore,
respondents are the following ten parties: the Agrodex Group (Agrodex);
Caicedo Group (Caicedo); Claveles Colombianos Group (Clavecol);
Cultivos Miramonte Group (Cultivos Miramonte); Floraterra Group
(Floraterra); Florex Group (Florex); Guacatay Group (Guacatay); Queens
Flowers Group (Queens); Tinzuque Group (Tinzuque); and Tuchany Group
(Tuchany).
Non-Selected Respondents
Consistent with our practice in Flowers Ninth Review, we have
assigned the non-selected respondents a weighted-average margin based
on the calculated margins of selected respondents, excluding any de
minimis margins and margins based on facts available. The firms in
question are listed under ``Non-Selected Respondents'' in the
Preliminary Results of Review section below.
Terminations
On July 9, 1997, Flexport de Colombia & Cia S.A. (Flexport), Flores
Silvestres S.A. (Silvestres), Vegaflor, and Agropecuaria Sierra Loma
S.A. (Sierra Loma) withdrew their requests for review. Silvestres,
Sierra Loma, and Vegaflor were included in the Department's initiation
notice, but Flexport was inadvertently omitted from the initiation
notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5), we are terminating this
review with respect to Sierra Loma and Vegaflor because these companies
have filed timely requests for withdrawal and no other interested party
requested that they be reviewed. The cash deposit rates for Sierra Loma
and Vegaflor will continue to be the rates established for them in the
most recently completed final results. Because Flexport was
inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice and because no other
party requested a review of it, Flexport continues not to be included
in this review.
With respect to Silvestres, a request for review was received for
this company from the petitioner, the Floral Trade Council (FTC), on
March 3, 1997. Because of the FTC's request, we are not terminating our
review for this company.
Verification
All ten selected respondents were verified during the two
immediately preceding reviews. With the exception of one respondent,
Caicedo, the verifications of all selected respondents during the two
preceding reviews were successful. Therefore, Caicedo was the only
respondent verified in the present review. We verified information
provided by Caicedo using standard verification procedures, including
on-site examination of relevant sales and financial records, and
inspection of original documentation containing relevant information.
[[Page 5356]]
Use of Facts Available
Tuchany
In Flowers Ninth Review and during the POR of the present review,
the Tuchany group consisted of five growers. The group has since
dissolved with three of the companies now out of business and the
remaining two growers sold to different, unaffiliated owners. While
Tuchany was able to report sales data for all subject merchandise sold
by the group during the POR, it was not able to report the cost data
for the three growers no longer in existence. The questionnaire
response, therefore, contained only the costs of the two operational
farms.
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act requires, inter alia, that if
necessary information is not available on the record, the Department
shall use facts available (FA). Pursuant to the Act, if 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 adverse inference in selecting from among FA.
Based on the circumstances described by Tuchany, we find it
reasonable that the company would have difficulty compiling a complete
response. Tuchany indicated that it acted to the best of its ability to
locate the missing data and provided a detailed explanation of its
efforts. Tuchany explained that cost data, unlike sales records, were
maintained individually by each company and Tuchany's exhaustive
efforts at locating the former employees and accounting records of the
three defunct companies were futile. Accordingly, we believe the use of
adverse FA is not warranted in this case. Therefore, for purposes of
these preliminary results, we have used the cost data of the two
operational farms as FA for the margin calculations of the entire
Tuchany group, including the three companies dissolved shortly after
the POR. Where cost data for a flower type was unavailable because that
flower type was not grown by one of the growers for which cost
information was reported, we have applied to those sales, as FA, the
margin calculated for the flower type for which cost data was
available. See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, re: Constructed Value Data
for Tuchany Group Companies, dated January 26, 1998.
Fair Value Comparisons
United States Price
Consistent with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act and Flowers Ninth
Review, 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 (either f.o.b. Bogota, c.i.f. Miami or c.i.f. Chicago) plus
certain additional charges, e.g., box charges and antidumping duties
paid, 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
charges by the consignee, e.g., box charges and antidumping duty
deposits paid, to the unaffiliated purchaser. For sales made through
affiliated parties, CEP was based on the packed price, consisting of
invoice price plus certain additional charges, e.g., box charges and
antidumping duty deposits 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, freight charges incurred in the
United States, 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 Flowers Ninth Review, 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 for sales made
through affiliated parties. 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.
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 (home market (HM) sales), 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 so sold (or offered for sale) for consumption
in a country other than the exporting country or the United States
(third country (TC) sales) or (3) the constructed value of that
merchandise.
Some companies selected to respond in this review have sales in the
home market of export quality flowers exceeding 5 percent of the sales
to the U.S. market, i.e., have a viable home market. However, most
companies report no selling expenses on these sales and report them as
being incidental to their real purpose of business, the production and
exportation of flowers. They also state that export quality sales in
the home market are not planned on and generally are the result of
excess production. 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.
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act states that if the administering
authority determines that the NV of the subject merchandise cannot be
determined using home market prices, then, notwithstanding the possible
use of third country prices, the NV of the subject merchandise may be
the constructed value (CV) of that merchandise. We received comments
and factual information concerning this issue from petitioners on
October 10, 1997 and January 9, 1998, and from respondents on December
15, 1997.
During this POR, certain companies selected to respond had viable
third country markets in Europe, Japan, and Canada. In prior reviews,
we have rejected using prices to Europe because the particular market
situation prevents a proper comparison. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers
from Colombia; Final
[[Page 5357]]
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62
FR 53287 at 53296 (October 14, 1997). Information submitted by
respondents shows that this market situation has continued. Therefore,
we are not basing NV on sales to European markets.
With respect to Japan and Canada, because these are not significant
export markets for Colombia, we have determined that, under the facts
of this case, prices to Canada or Japan are not representative within
the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act. As discussed
above in the section on ``Respondent Selection,'' we have limited our
analysis to a subset of the Colombian companies exporting to the United
States and we are basing the antidumping duty assessments for the non-
selected companies on the margins calculated for the selected
companies. Given this, we want to make our analysis as representative
as possible of the companies that were not selected to respond to our
questionnaire.
It is clear that neither Japan nor Canada is an important export
market for Colombian flower growers. Evidence on the record indicates
that Canada represents less than three percent of flower exports from
Colombia and Japan represents less than one percent of flower exports
from Colombia. Thus, to use sales to Japan or Canada as the basis of
our margin calculations for the few exporters that have viable markets
in Japan and Canada and then include those results in calculating the
rate used for assessing duties on the non-selected respondents would be
inappropriate for the vast majority of growers. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we are basing NV on CV.
As an alternative method for ensuring that NV was representative, we
considered using third country sales for those companies with a viable
third country market, but excluding those companies from the
calculation of the assessment rate for non-selected exporters. However,
that methodology would substantially reduce the percentage of exports
during the POR that would form the basis of the assessment calculation
for non-selected exporters. Therefore, we determine that the use of CV
is a more reasonable means of establishing a representative NV for
purposes of calculating the assessment rates for all exporters under
review.
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. Consistent
with the methodology used in the Final Results of Flowers Ninth Review
to calculate a per-unit CV, see 62 FR 53287 (October 14, 1997), we
first converted each month's CVs from pesos to dollars using the
corresponding month's exchange rate. We totaled the monthly CV
expressed in dollars over the POR and divided by the quantity of export
quality flowers sold by the grower/exporter to arrive at the per-stem
CV in U.S. dollars. The dollar per-stem CV was then converted to pesos
using the period-end exchange rate and then deflated these peso-
denominated amounts to the value of Colombian peso in each month of the
POR. Next, we converted the peso per-stem CV to dollars 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, with the exception of
Floraterra, all respondents reporting sales of export quality flowers
in the home market stated they had no selling expenses in that market.
Therefore, we did not include selling expenses for those respondents.
For Floraterra, we included the actual selling expenses incurred.
With respect to profit, we preliminarily determine that the
conditions that led to the use of FA for the profit rate in Flowers
Ninth Review continue to exist in the current POR. We find that home
market sales of culls and/or export quality flowers were outside the
ordinary course of trade because the record indicates that 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 also not able to apply the
profit methodology described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
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.'' Despite our efforts, we have not
been able to find any information on the profits earned in Colombia by
producers of merchandise that is in the same general category of
products as flowers. Therefore, we cannot determine a ``profit cap'' as
described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii). Consistent with our practice in
Flowers Ninth Review, we have applied section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) on the
basis of facts available and have developed a profit figure from the
financial statements of a Colombian producer of agricultural and
processed agricultural goods. See Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA) at 841. We preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to use
the profit rate for that company, 4.47 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. Finally, we adjusted for commissions paid in the U.S. market by
deducting any indirect selling expenses included in CV up to the amount
of the U.S. commissions.
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.
See Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March
8, 1996). Section 773A(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. See Notice of Final
Determination of Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61971 (November 19, 1997). 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.
[[Page 5358]]
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, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
Selected Respondents
The following 10 groups of firms (composed of 86 companies) were
selected as respondents and received individual rates, as indicated
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agrodex Group.............................................. 0.88
Agricola de las Mercedes S.A.
Agricola el Retiro Ltda.
Agrodex Ltda.
Degaflores Ltda.
Flores Camino Real Ltda.
Flores Cuatro Esquinas Ltda.
Flores de la Comuna Ltda.
Flores de Los Amigos Ltda.
Flores de los Arrayanes Ltda.
Flores de Mayo Ltda.
Flores del Gallinero Ltda.
Flores del Potrero Ltda.
Flores dos Hectareas Ltda.
Flores de Pueblo Viejo Ltda.
Flores el Trentino Ltda.
Flores la Conejera Ltda.
Flores Manare Ltda.
Florlinda Ltda.
Horticola el Triunfo Ltda.
Horticola Montecarlo Ltda.
Caicedo Group.............................................. 3.71
Agrobosque S.A.
Andalucia S.A.
Aranjuez S.A.
Consorcio Agroindustrial Colombiano S.A. ``CAICO''
Exportaciones Bochica S.A.
Floral Ltda.
Flores del Cauca S.A.
Productos el Rosal S.A.
Productos el Zorro S.A.
Claveles Colombianos Group................................. 0.90
Claveles Colombianos Ltda.
Elegant Flowers Ltda.
Fantasia Flowers Ltda.
Splendid Flowers Ltda.
Sun Flowers Ltda.
Cultivos Miramonte Group................................... 0.61
C.I. Colombiana de Bouquets S.A.
Cultivos Miramonte S.A.
Flores Mocari S.A.
Floraterra Group........................................... 6.10
Floraterra S.A.
Flores Casablanca S.A.
Flores Novaterra Ltda.
Flores San Mateo S.A.
Siete Flores S.A.
Florex Group............................................... 1.17
Agricola Guacari S.A.
Agricola el Castillo
Flores San Joaquin
Flores Altamira S.A.
Flores de Exportacion S.A.
Flores Primavera S.A.
Guacatay Group............................................. 2.49
Agricola Cunday S.A.
Agricola Guacatay S.A.
Agricola Ventura
Jardines Bacata Ltda.
Multiflora Comercializadora Internacional S.A.
Queens Flowers Group....................................... 0.11
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 Tandil
Flores la Mana
Flores las Acacias Ltda.
Flores la Valvanera Ltda.
Flores Jayvana
Flores Ubate Ltda.
Jardines de Chia Ltda.
Jardines Fredonia Ltda.
M.G. Consultores Ltda.
Mountain Roses
Queens Flowers de Colombia Ltda.
Quality Flowers S.A.
Florval S.A. (Floval)
Jardines del Rosal.........................................
Tinzuque Group............................................. 1.23
Tinzuque Ltda.
Catu S.A.
Tuchany Group.............................................. 9.21
Tuchany S.A.
Flores Sibate
Flores Tikaya
Flores Munya
Flores Xue S.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Selected Respondents
The following 338 companies were not selected as respondents and
will receive a rate of 2.55 percent, calculated as discussed above in
the section on ``Non-Selected Respondents'':
Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia
Achalay
Aga Group
Agricola la Celestina
Agricola la Maria
Agricola Benilda Ltda.
Agrex de Oriente
Agricola Acevedo Ltda.
Agricola Altiplano
Agricola Arenales Ltda.
Agricola Bonanza Ltda.
Agricola Circasia Ltda.
Agricola de Occident
Agricola del Monte
Agricola el Cactus S.A.
Agricola el Redil
Agricola Guali S.A.
Agricola la Corsaria Ltda.
Agricola la Siberia
Agricola Las Cuadras Group
Agricola las Cuadras Ltda.
Flores de Hacaritama
Agricola Megaflor Ltda.
Agricola Yuldama
Agrocaribu Ltda.
Agro de Narino
Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group
Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.
Celia Flowers
Passion Flowers
Primo Flowers
Temptation Flowers
Agroindustrial Madonna S.A.
Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.
Agromonte Ltda.
Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.
Agropecuaria la Marcela
Agropecuaria Mauricio
Agrorosas
Agrotabio Kent
Aguacarga
Alcala
Alstroflores Ltda.
Amoret
Ancas Ltda.
Andalucia
Andes Group
Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.
Flores de los Andes Ltda.
Flores Horizonte Ltda.
Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.
A.Q.
Arboles Azules Ltda.
Aspen Gardens Ltda.
Astro Ltda.
Becerra Castellanos y Cia.
Bojaca Group
Agricola Bojaca
Universal Flowers
Flores y Plantas Tropicales
Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.
Tropiflora
Cantarrana Group
Cantarrana Ltda.
Agricola los Venados Ltda.
Carcol Ltda.
Cienfuegos Group
Cienfuegos Ltda.
Flores la Conchita
Cigarral Group
Flores Cigarral
Flores Tayrona
Classic
Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.
Clavelez
Coexflor
Colibri Flowers Ltda.
Color Explosion
Combiflor
Consorcio Agroindustrial
Cota
Crest D'or
Crop S.A.
Cultiflores Ltda.
Cultivos Guameru
Cultivos Medellin Ltda.
Cultivos Tahami Ltda.
Cypress Valley
Daflor Ltda.
[[Page 5359]]
Degaflor
De La Pava Guevara E. Hijos Ltda.
Del Monte
Del Tropico Ltda.
Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.
Disagro
Diveragricola
Dynasty Roses Ltda.
El Antelio S.A.
Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen Tantau)
El Milaro
El Tambo
El Timbul Ltda.
Envy Farms Group
Envy Farms
Flores Marandua Ltda.
Euroflora
Exoticas
Exotic Flowers
Exotico
Expoflora Ltda.
Exportadora
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
Ferson Trading
Flamingo Flowers
Flor Colombiana S.A.
Flora Bellisima
Flora Intercontinental
Floralex Ltda..
Floralex Ltda.
Flores el Puente Ltda.
Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.
Florandia Herrera Camacho & Cia.
Floreales Group
Floreales Ltda.
Kimbaya
Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.
Flores Abaco S.A.
Flores Acuarela S.A.
Flores Agromonte
Flores Aguila
Flores Colon Ltda.
Flores de la Sabana S.A.
Flores de Serrezuela S.A.
Flores de Suesca S.A.
Flores del Rio Group
Agricola Cardenal S.A.
Flores del Rio S.A.
Indigo S.A.
Flores El Molino S.A.
Flores El Zorro Ltda.
Flores la Cabanuela
Flores la Fragrancia
Flores la Gioconda
Flores la Lucerna
Flores la Macarena
Flores la Pampa
Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group
Santana
Flores las Caicas
Flores las Mesitas
Flores los Sauces
Flores Monserrate Ltda.
Flores Montecarlo
Flores Monteverde
Flores Palimana
Flores Ramo Ltda.
Flores S.A.
Flores Sagaro
Flores Saint Valentine
Flores Sairam Ltda.
Flores San Andres
Flores San Carlos
Flores San Juan S.A.
Flores Santa Fe Ltda.
Flores Santana
Flores Sausalito
Flores Selectas
Flores Silvestres
Flores Sindamanoi
Flores Suasuque
Flores Tenerife Ltda.
Flores Tiba S.A.
Flores Tocarinda
Flores Tomine Ltda.
Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group
Flores Tropicales Ltda.
Happy Candy Ltda.
Mercedes Ltda.
Rosas Colombianos Ltda.
Flores Urimaco
Flores Violette
Florexpo
Floricola
Floricola la Gaitana S.A.
Florimex Colombia Ltda.
Florisol
Florpacifico
Flor y Color
Flowers of the World/Rosa
Four Seasons
Fracolsa
Fresh Flowers
F. Salazar
Funza Group
Flores Alborada
Flores de Funza S.A.
Flores del Bosque Ltda.
Garden and Flowers Ltda.
German Ocampo
Granja
Green Flowers
Grupo el Jardin
Agricola el Jardin Ltda.
La Marotte S.A.
Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.
Gypso Flowers
Hacienda la Embarrada
Hacienda Matute
Hana/Hisa Group
Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.
Flores Tokai Hisa
Hernando Monroy
Horticultra Montecarlo
Horticultura de la Sasan
Horticultura El Molino
Hosa Group
Horticultura de la Sabana S.A.
HOSA Ltda.
Innovacion Andina S.A.
Minispray S.A.
Prohosa Ltda.
Illusion Flowers
Industria Santa Clara
Industrial Agricola
Industrial Terwengel Ltda.
Ingro Ltda.
Inverpalmas
Inversiones Almer Ltda.
Inversiones Bucarelia
Inversiones Cota
Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.
Inversiones Flores del Alto
Inversiones Maya, Ltda.
Inversiones Morcote
Inversiones Morrosquillo
Inversiones Playa
Inversiones & Producciones Tecnica
Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.
Inversiones Silma
Inversiones Sima
Inversiones Supala S.A.
Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.
Iturrama S.A.
Jardin de Carolina
Jardines Choconta
Jardines Darpu
Jardines Natalia Ltda.
Jardines Tocarema
Jardines de America
Jardines de Timana
J.M. Torres
Karla Flowers
Kingdom S.A.
La Colina
La Embairada
La Flores Ltda.
La Floresta
La Plazoleta Ltda.
Las Amalias Group
Las Amalias S.A.
Pompones Ltda.
La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.
Ramiflora Ltda.
Las Flores
Laura Flowers
L.H.
Linda Colombiana Ltda.
Loma Linda
Loreana Flowers
Los Geranios Ltda.
Luisa Flowers
Luisiana Farms
M. Alejandra
Manjui Ltda.
Mauricio Uribe
Maxima Farms Group
Agricola los Arboles S.A.
Colombian D.C. Flowers
Polo Flowers
Rainbow Flowers
Maxima Farms Inc.
Merastec
Monteverde Ltda.
Morcoto
Nasino
Natuflora Ltda../San Martin Bloque B
Olga Rincon
Oro Verde Group
[[Page 5360]]
Inversiones Miraflores S.A.
Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.
Otono (Agroindustrial Otono)
Papagayo Group
Agricola Papagayo Ltda.
Inversiones Calypso S.A.
Petalos de Colombia Ltda.
Pinar Guameru
Piracania
Pisochago Ltda.
Plantaciones Delta Ltda.
Plantas S.A.
Prismaflor
Propagar Plantas S.A.
Reme Salamanca
Rosa Bella
Rosaflor
Rosales de Colombia Ltda.
Rosales de Suba Ltda.
Rosas Sabanilla Group
Flores la Colmena Ltda.
Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.
Inversiones la Serena
Agricola la Capilla
Rosas y Jardines
Rose
Rosex Ltda.
Roselandia
San Ernesto
San Valentine
Sansa Flowers
Santa Rosa Group
Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.
Floricola La Ramada Ltda.
Santana Flowers Group
Santana Flowers Ltda.
Hacienda Curibital Ltda.
Inversiones Istra Ltda.
Sarena
Select Pro
Senda Brava Ltda.
Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.
Shila
Siempreviva
Soagro Group
Agricola el Mortino Ltda.
Flores Aguaclara Ltda.
Flores del Monte Ltda.
Flores la Estancia
Jaramillo y Daza
Solor Flores Ltda.
Starlight
Superflora Ltda.
Susca
Sweet Farms
Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.
Floricola la Ramada Ltda.
Tag Ltda.
The Beall Company
The Rose
Tomino
Toto Flowers Group
Flores de Suesca S.A.
Toto Flowers
Tropical Garden
Uniflor Ltda.
Velez de Monchaux Group
Velez De Monchaux e Hijos y Cia S. en C.
Agroteusa
Victoria Flowers
Villa Cultivos Ltda.
Villa Diana
Vuelven Ltda.
Zipa Flowers
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 also 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 a discussion 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 an importer-
specific per-stem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made
during the POR to the quantity of subject merchandise entered during
the POR. We have used the number of stems entered during the POR,
rather than entered values, because respondents reported average
monthly prices and, moreover, the entered values were not associated
with particular importers. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. 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
Less-Than-Fair-Value (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 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: January 26, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-2482 Filed 1-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P