[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41789-41794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20911]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-533-813]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From India

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson or David J. 
Goldberger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4136, 
respectively.

[[Page 41790]]

The Applicable Statute

    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 
(``Department'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351, 
62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain preserved mushrooms 
(``mushrooms'') from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in 
section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping Investigations: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, 
India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China (63 FR 5360, 
February 2, 1998)), the following events have occurred:
    During January and February 1998, the Department requested 
information from the U.S. Embassy in India to identify producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise. During February 1998, the 
Department also requested and received comments from the petitioners 
and potential respondents regarding the model matching criteria.
    On February 27, 1998, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary injury determination in this case.
    Also on February 27, 1998, the Department issued an antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Agro Dutch Foods (India) (``Agro Dutch''), Alpine 
Biotech Ltd. (``Alpine Biotech''), Flex Foods, Ltd., Mandeep Mushrooms 
Ltd. (``Mandeep''), Ponds India Ltd. (``Ponds''), Premier Mushrooms 
Ltd. (India) (``Premier''), Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd. 
(``Saptarishi''), and Transchem, Ltd. (``Transchem'') .
    On March 30, 1998, the Department issued a Federal Register notice 
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. (See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India, 
Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China: Comments Regarding 
Product Coverage, 63 FR 16971 (April 7, 1998). No parties to this 
investigation filed comments regarding product coverage.
    In March and April 1998, the Department received responses to 
Section A of the questionnaire from Agro Dutch, Flex Foods, Ponds, 
Premier, Transchem, and Saptarishi. In addition, the Department 
received a March 14, 1998, letter from Weikfeld Agro Products Ltd., 
stating that it did not sell the subject merchandise to the United 
States during 1997.
    On April 1, 1998, the petitioners in this investigation, L.K. 
Bowman, Inc., Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., 
Mount Laurel Canning Corp., Mushroom Canning Company, Sunny Dell Foods, 
Inc., and United Canning Corp., submitted a timely allegation pursuant 
to section 773(b) of the Act that Agro Dutch, Ponds and Transchem had 
made sales in the third country market at less than the COP. (These 
three companies reported in their Section A responses that their home 
markets were not viable). Our analysis of the allegation indicated that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Agro Dutch, 
Ponds, and Transchem sold mushrooms in the third country market at 
prices at less than the COP. Accordingly, we initiated COP 
investigations with respect to Agro Dutch, Ponds and Transchem pursuant 
to section 773(b) of the Act (see Memorandum from Team to Louis Apple, 
Office Director, dated April 6, 1998).
    On April 14, 1998, pursuant to section 777A(c) of the Act, the 
Department determined that, due to the large number of exporters/
producers of the subject merchandise, it would limit the number of 
mandatory respondents in this investigation. The Department determined 
that the resources available to it for this investigation and the three 
companion investigations limited our ability to analyze any more than 
the responses of the two largest exporters/producers of the subject 
merchandise in this investigation. Based on the Section A questionnaire 
responses, the Department selected the two largest companies, Agro 
Dutch and Ponds, to be the mandatory respondents in this proceeding 
(see Memorandum to Louis Apple, dated April 14, 1998).
    On April 30, 1998, the Department requested comments as to whether 
it should consider ``whole mushroom size'' as a physical characteristic 
for its model matching methodology. On May 14, the petitioners and 
Ponds responded to the Department's request for information. Agro Dutch 
responded to the Department's request for information in its 
questionnaire responses. On June 4, 1998, petitioners filed rebuttal 
comments on this issue.
    We received responses to Sections B, C and D of the questionnaire 
from Agro Dutch, Flex Foods, and Ponds in April 1998. We issued 
supplemental questionnaires for Sections A, B, C, and D to Agro Dutch 
and Ponds in May 1998 and received responses to these questionnaires in 
June 1998.
    On May 1, 1998, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the 
petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary 
determination for forty days. We granted this request and, on May 8, 
1998, we postponed the preliminary determination until no later than 
July 27, 1998. (See 63 FR 27264, May 18, 1998).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on July 20, 1998, Agro 
Dutch requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register. On July 22, 1998, Agro Dutch amended its request to include a 
request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, (2) Agro Dutch accounts for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling 
reasons for denial exist, we are granting the respondent's request and 
are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days 
after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. On July 23, 
1998, Pond's made the same request.

Facts Available

    We did not receive a questionnaire response from either Alpine 
Biotech or Mandeep. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an 
interested party or any other person--(A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * * 
* shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts

[[Page 41791]]

otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this 
title.'' Alpine Biotech and Mandeep failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaires. Accordingly, we have determined that use 
of facts available is appropriate for both respondents.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information. The exporters 
that decided not to respond in any form to the Department's 
questionnaire failed to act to the best of their ability in this 
investigation. Thus, the Department has determined that, in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is 
warranted.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' such as the petition, the Department shall, 
to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994) (hereinafter, the ``SAA'') states that 
``corroborate'' means to determine that the information used has 
probative value. See SAA at 870.
    In this proceeding, we considered the petition as the most 
appropriate information on the record to form the basis for a dumping 
calculation for these uncooperative respondents. In accordance with 
section 776(c) of the Act, we sought to corroborate the data contained 
in the petition. We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the 
information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the 
petition, to the extent appropriate information was available for this 
purpose (e.g., import statistics and foreign market research reports). 
See Notice of Initiation.
    For purposes of the preliminary determination, we attempted to 
corroborate the information in the petition. We reexamined the export 
price and constructed value data (the NV basis for the highest petition 
margins) provided in the petition for the highest margin calculation in 
light of information obtained during the investigation and, to the 
extent that the data could be corroborated, found that it continues to 
be of probative value, except for the direct materials, labor, and 
variable overhead costs in the petition constructed value calculation. 
When compared to the price information for these items reported by the 
respondents for the most comparable merchandise, we found the petition 
costs to be significantly different. In this case, we determined that 
it was appropriate make an adjustment in those values in order to 
derive a margin that is reliable, relevant, and sufficiently adverse so 
as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available 
rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and 
accurate information in a timely manner. We recalculated the 
constructed value in the petition using the highest costs for these 
items reported by a respondent, and compared that constructed value to 
the export price used for the highest margin in the petition in order 
to calculate a margin for the two uncooperative respondents. The result 
is 243.87 percent (see Memorandum to the File dated July 27, 1998).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or 
as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this 
investigation are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. 
``Preserved mushrooms'' refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or 
preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. 
These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including but 
not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, 
including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. 
Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems 
and pieces. Included within the scope of the investigation are 
``brined'' mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt 
solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following: 
(1) all other species of mushroom including straw mushrooms; (2) all 
fresh and chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick 
blanched mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) 
``marinated,'' ``acidified'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under 
subheadings 2003.10.27, 2003.10.31, 2003.10.37, 2003.10.43, 2003.10.47, 
2003.10.53, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTS''). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Agro Dutch and Ponds covered by the description in 
the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, above, and sold by Agro Dutch 
to the Netherlands and sold by Ponds to Denmark (see ``Home Market 
Viability'' section below) during the POI to be foreign like products 
for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. 
sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third 
country to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most 
similar foreign like product. For those U.S. sales of mushrooms for 
which there were no comparable third country sales in the ordinary 
course of trade (i.e., above-cost) , we compared U.S. sales to 
constructed value (``CV'').
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in 
the following order: preservation method, container type, mushroom 
style, weight, grade, container solution, and label type.
    Based on an analysis of the comments received, we have not included 
whole mushroom size as a physical characteristic for purposes of model 
matching. The Department has received conflicting information on this 
issue. For example, Agro Dutch claims that mini mushrooms (``minis'') 
are a premium product and because of sales marketing and cost reasons, 
this product characteristic must be taken into account. Ponds, on the 
other hand, states that minis are a substandard product that brings in 
lower prices than normal size whole mushrooms. The petitioners claim 
that mushroom size is not a relevant product characteristic for 
marketing or cost purposes. Accordingly, there is an insufficient basis 
on the record to find that an additional characteristic is needed at 
this time.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of mushrooms from India to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared export price 
(``EP'') to the Normal Value (``NV''), as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated 
weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.

[[Page 41792]]

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP transaction. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV 
is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general 
and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT is 
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
exporter to importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different 
level of trade than EP, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    While neither Agro Dutch nor Ponds claimed a LOT adjustment, we 
have, nonetheless, undertaken an evaluation to determine whether such 
an adjustment was necessary. In so doing, we examined both respondents' 
distribution systems, including selling functions, classes of 
customers, and selling expenses. Ponds sold to only one class of 
customer in each market. Ponds reported that it does not incur any 
selling expenses in the U.S. or third country markets. With regard to 
Agro Dutch, all sales in both markets are made through one channel of 
distribution. Accordingly, all comparisons are at the same level of 
trade for both respondents and an adjustment pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(A) is not warranted.

Export Price

    For Agro Dutch and Ponds, we used EP methodology, in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was 
sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
prior to importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated.

Ponds

    We based EP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign 
inland insurance and Indian export duty in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Agro Dutch

    We based EP on the packed FOB or C&F prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, 
for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, international 
freight, and Indian export duties, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

    After testing (1) home market and third country market viability 
and (2) whether third country sales were at below-cost prices, we 
calculated NV as noted in the ``Price to Price Comparisons'' and 
``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

1. Home and Third Country Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Because 
both Agro Dutch's and Pond's aggregate volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was less than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was not viable for either respondent. However, we 
determined that the third country markets of the Netherlands and 
Denmark were viable for Agro Dutch and Ponds, respectively, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C), we have used third country sales as a 
basis for NV.
    In its Section A response, Agro Dutch argued that the foreign like 
product sold in Mexico is the most appropriate for comparison to the 
subject merchandise because it is more similar to the product exported 
to the United States. However, we selected the Netherlands because it 
is Agro Dutch's largest third country market and we found identical 
matches to Agro Dutch's U.S. sales using the model matching hierarchy 
discussed above under ``Product Comparisons.'' We selected Denmark as 
the appropriate third country market for Ponds because it was the 
largest of Ponds' third country markets. See 19 CFR 351.404(e).

2. Cost of Production Analysis

    As stated in the ``Case History'' section of the notice, based on a 
timely allegation filed by the petitioners, the Department initiated an 
investigation to determine whether Agro Dutch's and Ponds' third 
country sales were made at prices less than the COP.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for third country SG&A, interest 
expenses, and packing costs. We used the information from Agro Dutch's 
and Ponds' Section D supplemental questionnaire responses to calculate 
COP, with the following adjustments:
    Agro Dutch. (1) We calculated COP using the average direct 
materials expense reported by Agro Dutch, instead of Agro Dutch's 
original direct material costs, which were derived using a net 
realizable value allocation.
    (2) In order to put the general and administrative (``G&A'') rate 
on the same basis as the per-unit cost of manufacturing, we excluded 
certain expense items from the cost of goods sold used by Agro Dutch as 
the denominator in its calculation.
    (3) We made the same revisions to the denominator used in the 
financial expense rate for the same purposes.
    (4) Finally, we have not included the startup period adjustment 
amounts claimed by Agro Dutch in the COP calculations. Agro Dutch 
calculated the startup adjustments based on total production costs. 
According to the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA''), section 
B.5.d.3, page 167: ``Commerce will replace unit production costs 
incurred during the startup period with unit production costs incurred 
at the end of the startup period.'' Actual costs for the newly built 
rooms at the end of the startup phase were not used in Agro Dutch's 
calculation of the adjustments. Although we have preliminarily denied 
Agro Dutch's startup adjustment on the basis that it was miscalculated, 
we will continue to analyze the company's claim that it meets the 
statutory conditions for startup under section 773(f)(1)C) of the Act.
    Ponds. (1) We used Ponds' cost worksheets based on actual yields in 
our calculations instead of relying on Pond's per-unit costs derived 
from hypothetical yields.
    (2) We increased the cost of manufacturing for certain minis to 
include an amount for expenses incurred on the reprocessing of minis.
    (3) We also revised per-unit variable overhead costs to exclude the 
Indian

[[Page 41793]]

export duty, which we have recalculated as a movement expense.
B. Test of Third Country Sales Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COPs for Agro Dutch and Ponds, 
adjusted where appropriate, to third country sales prices of the 
foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In 
determining whether to disregard third country sales made at prices 
less than the COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such 
sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we 
compared the COP to the third country prices, less any applicable 
movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling 
expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities'' within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared 
prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI, we also determined that 
such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below the 
COP, we disregarded all sales of that product. For those U.S. sales of 
mushrooms for which there were no comparable (above-cost) third country 
sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP to CV, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain mushroom products sold by Agro Dutch, 
more than 20 percent of third country sales were sold at below COP 
prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. We 
therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining above-cost sales 
as the basis of determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act. For Ponds, we found that all of the third country sales were 
at prices less than the COP. Thus, in the absence of any above-cost 
third country sales, we compared EP to CV in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act.
D. Calculation of CV
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, interest, and 
U.S. packing costs. We made the same adjustments to the reported costs 
for the CV calculation as we made for the COP calculation.
    For Agro Dutch, all comparisons were made on a price-to-price 
basis. Thus, it was not necessary to calculate CV.
    As stated above with regard to Ponds, since there were no above-
cost Danish sales and, hence, no actual company-specific profit data 
available for Ponds's sales of the foreign like product to Denmark, we 
calculated profit in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the 
Act and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, 
H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. at 841. (1994) (``SAA''). 
Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) states that profit may be determined under 
any reasonable method with the appropriate ``profit cap.'' The SAA, 
however, provides that where, due to the absence of data, the 
Department cannot determine amounts for profit under alternatives (i) 
or (ii) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act or a ``profit cap'' under 
alternative (iii) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department 
may apply alternative (iii) on the basis of the facts available. In 
this case, we are unable to determine an amount for profit under 
alternatives (i) or (ii), or a ``profit cap'' under alternative (iii) 
because we do not have actual amounts incurred by other companies on 
home market sales of the same general category of products (the so-
called profit cap). Therefore, as facts available under section 
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, for Ponds' profit we are using a rate 
calculated from Ponds' 1996 financial statements for mushrooms. We 
believe this data is a reasonable surrogate for profit because it is 
based upon a period in which there was no alleged dumping. For SG&A, we 
have used Ponds' actual SG&A expense on sales to the third country. 
This data reflects Ponds' actual experience in selling the foreign like 
product.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting 
price for inland freight, international freight, brokerage and 
handling, and Indian customs duty. In addition, we made adjustments 
under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, where appropriate, for 
differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses. 
Finally, we deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We deducted from CV the 
weighted-average third country direct selling expenses and added the 
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773(A) of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the export price, as indicated in the 
chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain 
in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average 
                    Exporter/manufacturer                       margin  
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agro Dutch Foods Limited....................................        2.75
Pond's India, Ltd...........................................       15.18
Alpine Biotech Ltd..........................................      243.87
Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd.......................................      243.87
All Others..................................................        9.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports

[[Page 41794]]

are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. 
industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than October 14, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later than October 
21, 1998. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues 
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such summary 
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In 
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing 
will be held on October 23, 1998, time and room to be determined, at 
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the 
time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled 
time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If 
this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination by no later than 135 days after the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration .
[FR Doc. 98-20911 Filed 8-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P