[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30476-30481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14520]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-813]
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From
Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by producers/exporters of subject
merchandise and by a group of U.S. importers, the Department of
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. This review covers five
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review is
July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal
value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results,
we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties
based on the difference between the export price and the normal value.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Kris Campbell, AD/
CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0650 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 provided in 19 CFR
part 351 (1998).
Background
On July 18, 1995, we published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand (60 FR
36775). On July 1, 1998, we published in the Federal Register the
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this
order, covering the period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998 (63 FR
35909).
The following producers/exporters of canned pineapple fruit
requested a review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2): Vita Food
Factory (1989) Co. Ltd. (Vita); Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd. (KFC);
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd. (SIFCO); Siam Food Products Co. Ltd.
(SFP); The Thai Pineapple Public Co. Ltd. (TIPCO); Malee Sampran Public
Co. Ltd. (Malee); and Dole Food Company Inc., Dole Packaged Foods
Company and Dole Thailand Ltd. (collectively, Dole).
In addition, on July 29, 1998, U.S. importers Heartland Foods Inc.,
J.A. Kirsch Corp., Kompass Food Trading International, Mandi Foods,
Inc., North East Marketing Co., Port Royal Sales, Ltd., Rykoff-Sexton,
Inc., and Summit Import Corp., requested a review of Vita in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(3). We did not receive a request for a review
from the petitioners. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maui Pineapple Company and the International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 27, 1998, we published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1,
1997, through June 30, 1998 (63 FR 45796).
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
On August 27 and October 30, 1998, Malee and Dole, respectively,
withdrew their requests for review. Because there was no other request
for a review of Malee or of Dole, and because both their letters
withdrawing their requests for a review were timely filed, we are
rescinding the review with respect to both Malee and Dole in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this review is canned pineapple fruit (CPF).
For purposes of the review, CPF is defined as pineapple processed and/
or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces,
chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in
metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is
currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS
2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS
2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e., juice-
packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and for customs purposes, our written description of the scope is
dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified
information provided by Vita and KFC. We used standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of the respondent producers'
facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our
verification findings are outlined in the verification reports placed
in the case file in Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.
Comparisons
We compared the export price (EP) to the normal value (NV), as
described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice.
We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales 2 in the
U.S. and comparison markets of products that were identical with
respect to the following characteristics: Weight, form, variety, and
grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise,
we compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the
comparison market based on the characteristics listed above, in that
order
[[Page 30477]]
of priority. Where there were no appropriate comparison market sales of
comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United
States to constructed value (CV), in accordance with section 773 (a)(4)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For all companies, we matched U.S. and comparison market
sales using invoice date as the date of sale for both markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP as defined in
section 772(a) of the Act. We determined the EP for each company as
follows.
TIPCO
We calculated an EP for all of TIPCO's sales because the
merchandise was sold either directly by TIPCO or indirectly through its
U.S. affiliate, TIPCO Marketing Co. (TMC), to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and constructed
export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of
record. Sales through TMC involved direct shipment from TIPCO to the
unaffiliated customer, without any merchandise entering TMC's physical
inventory. Further, TMC's involvement in the sales process for indirect
sales was limited to that of a processor of sales documentation. See,
e.g., Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Flat Products from Canada:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12725,
12738 (March 16, 1998). We calculated EP based on the packed FOB or CIF
price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions
from the starting price for foreign movement expenses (including
brokerage and handling, port charges, stuffing expenses, and inland
freight), international freight, U.S. customs duties, and U.S.
brokerage and handling.
SFP
We calculated an EP for all of SFP's sales because the merchandise
was sold directly by SFP to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted
based on the facts of record. SFP has one employee located in the
United States who acts only as a processor of sales-related
documentation and as a communication link with U.S. customers regarding
SFP's U.S. sales. The merchandise was shipped directly to the
unaffiliated customer in the United States. The information on the
record indicates that SFP's Bangkok office is responsible for
confirming orders and for issuing the invoice direct to the customer.
We calculated EP based on the packed FOB price to unaffiliated
purchasers for exportation to the United States. We made deductions
from the starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign inland movement
expenses and international freight in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Vita
We calculated an EP for all of Vita's sales because the merchandise
was sold directly by Vita to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted
based on the facts of record. We calculated EP based on the packed FOB
or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made
deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses
(inland freight to the port of exportation) and international freight.
KFC
We calculated an EP for all of KFC's sales because the merchandise
was sold directly by KFC to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted
based on the facts of record. We calculated EP based on the packed, FOB
or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made
deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses
(including inland freight, terminal and handling charges, container
freight station charges, and port documentation charges) and
international freight.
SIFCO
We calculated an EP for all of SIFCO's sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by SIFCO to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated EP
based on the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers for
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for
foreign inland freight.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market
sales and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of foreign like
product each respondent sold in the exporting country did not permit a
proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States because the quantity of each company's sales in its home
market was less than 5 percent of the quantity of its sales to the U.S.
market. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, for each
respondent, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we
based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold
for consumption in each respondent's largest third-country market,
i.e., Germany for Vita and SIFCO, the United Kingdom for SFP, and
Canada for TIPCO and KFC.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a cost of
production (COP) investigation of sales by Vita, TIPCO and SFP in the
comparison market. Because we disregarded sales that failed the cost
test in the last completed review of TIPCO and SFP, we had reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales by these companies of the
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in
this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
In the 1996-97 administrative review, the first segment of the
proceeding in which Vita was involved, we initiated a below-cost
inquiry on Vita pursuant to an adequate below-cost allegation submitted
by the petitioners. While Vita submitted a response to the sales
portions of the questionnaire (sections A-C), it did not respond to our
requests for COP data (section D), nor did it respond to any of our
supplemental questionnaires. As a result, we determined Vita's
antidumping rate for the 1996-97 period based on adverse facts
available, using the highest calculated rate from the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation. See Notice of Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple
Fruit From Thailand, 63 FR 43661, 43663--66 (August 14, 1998). The
Department's determination in the previous review, including the fact
that we had initiated a below-cost inquiry on Vita, and that we applied
total adverse facts available to Vita for, inter alia, failing to
respond to the Department's cost questionnaire, provides the Department
with a basis to infer that sales at prices below COP would have been
disregarded in that review. Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we also have reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that sales by Vita of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of NV in this review may
[[Page 30478]]
have been made at prices below the COP.
We conducted the COP analysis as described below.
1. Calculation of COP/Fruit Cost Allocation
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the costs of
materials, fabrication, selling, general and administrative expenses
(SG&A), and packing costs. We relied on the submitted COPs except in
the specific instances noted below, where the submitted costs were not
appropriately quantified or valued.
The Department's long-standing practice, now codified at section
773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, is to rely on a company's normal books and
records if such records are in accordance with home country generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and reasonably reflect the costs
associated with production of the merchandise. In addition, as the
statute indicates, the Department considers whether an accounting
methodology, particularly an allocation methodology, has been
historically used by the company. See section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act.
In previous segments of this proceeding, the Department has determined
that joint production costs (i.e., pineapple and pineapple processing
costs) cannot be reasonably allocated to canned pineapple on the basis
of weight. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29561 (June 5,
1995)), and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 63 FR 7392, 7398
(February 13, 1998).3 For instance, cores and shells are
used in juice production, while trimmed and cored pineapple cylinders
are used in CPF production. Because these various parts of a pineapple
are not interchangeable when it comes to CPF versus juice production,
it would be unreasonable to value all parts of the pineapple equally by
using a weight-based allocation methodology. Several respondents that
revised their fruit cost allocation methodologies during the 1995-96
POR changed to weight-based methodologies and did not incorporate any
measure of the qualitative factor of the different parts of the
pineapple. As a result, such methodologies, although in conformity with
Thai GAAP, do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with
production of CPF. Therefore, for companies whose fruit cost allocation
methodology is weight-based, we requested that they recalculate fruit
costs allocated to CPF based on a net realizable value (NRV)
methodology. Consistent with prior segments of this proceeding, the NRV
methodology that we requested respondents to use was based on company-
specific historical amounts for sales and separable costs during the
five-year period of 1990 through 1994. We made this request of all
companies in this review except for KFC. Because KFC already allocates
fruit costs on a basis that reasonably takes into account qualitative
differences between pineapple parts used in CPF versus juice products
in its normal accounting records, we have not required KFC to
recalculate its reported costs using the NRV methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in favor of the
respondents who challenged the Department's position that joint
production costs cannot be reasonably allocated to canned pineapple
on the basis of weight. The Thai Pineapple Public Co. Ltd., et al.
v. United States, 946 F. Supp. 11 (CIT 1996). That decision is
currently being reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We made the following company-specific adjustments to the cost data
submitted in this review.
KFC
While KFC provided its historical NRV data as requested, it
demonstrated at verification that its normal methodology is to allocate
fruit costs on a revenue basis. Therefore, we have valued KFC's fruit
costs using the company's historical allocation methodology.
SIFCO
Because in the last completed review of SIFCO we did not disregard
any below-cost sales, we did not require SIFCO to respond to Section D
of our questionnaire. However, as part of its variable manufacturing
cost, SIFCO reported that it calculates fruit costs based on a weight-
based methodology. Therefore, we have recalculated SIFCO's fruit costs
using the historical five-year NRV data.
SFP
SFP's reported fruit costs are based on NRV data for the 1990-1994
period used in previous reviews. However, in calculating its cost
allocation using the historic NRV data, SFP altered the Department's
methodology by incorporating volume-based weighting factors. Since the
SFP approach is not based solely on value ratios and thus introduces
the distortions that the Department has found inherent in weight-based
cost allocations, we have recalculated SFP's reported fruit costs using
the same 1990-1994 NRV cost allocation employed in the previous review,
which is based on value ratios alone.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the
adjusted weighted-average COP for each respondent to the comparison
market sales of the foreign like product, in order to determine whether
these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were
sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the revised
COP to the comparison market prices, less any applicable movement
charges, taxes, rebates, commissions and other direct and indirect
selling expenses.
Unlike in past segments of the proceeding, we have not deducted
from the COP the value of certain tax certificate revenues. Based on a
letter we reviewed from the Thai government and statements made by Vita
officials at verification, 4 the value of these tax
certificates appears to be determined by the Thai government based
simply on a percentage of a company's export revenue. Vita officials
stated that this revenue is not related in any way to cost of
production, and we found no evidence that it is tied to any duty
drawback scheme. Instead, we found that this revenue is paid to
companies upon the export of domestically-produced merchandise.
Therefore, no adjustment was made to our dumping calculation for this
payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to office director from case analysts:
Verification of the Sales and Cost Information in the Response of
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita) in the 1997-98
Administrative Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, June
1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 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 made at prices
below 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 were made at prices below the
COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) Such sales were
found to be made within an extended period of time in ``substantial
quantities'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for
the POR, we
[[Page 30479]]
determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period
of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We found that, for certain CPF products, TIPCO, SFP, and Vita made
comparison market sales at prices below the COP within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities. Further, we found that these
sales prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We determined price-based NVs for each company as follows. For all
respondents, we made adjustments for differences in packing in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act,
and we deducted movement expenses consistent with section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made
adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in
physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling
expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the
``commission offset''). Specifically, where commissions were granted in
the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward
adjustment to normal value for the lesser of (1) the amount of the
commission paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the amount of indirect
selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were
granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an
upward adjustment to normal value following the same methodology.
Company-specific adjustments are described below.
TIPCO
We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: brokerage and handling, port charges, stuffing
expenses and foreign inland freight. We made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market
sales (credit expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (credit expenses and bank charges).
SFP
We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB or C&F
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United Kingdom. We adjusted
for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight, port
charges and ocean freight, where applicable. We made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market
sales (credit expenses, bank charges, warranties and commissions) and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses and bank charges).
Vita
We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB or C&F
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted for the
following movement expenses: foreign inland freight and international
freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank charges
and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit
expenses, bank charges and commissions).
SIFCO
We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight and international freight. We
made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for
third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank charges and
commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses,
bank charges and commissions).
KFC
We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight, terminal and handling
charges, container freight station charges, and port documentation
charges. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank charges
and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit
expenses, bank charges and commissions).
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
For those CPF products for which we could not determine the NV
based on comparison market sales because there were no contemporaneous
sales of a comparable product in the ordinary course of trade, we
compared the EP to CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of manufacturing of the
product sold in the United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses,
comparison market profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated each
respondent's CV based on the methodology described in the ``Calculation
of COP'' section of this notice, above. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we used the actual amounts incurred and
realized by each respondent in connection with the production and sale
of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the foreign country to calculate SG&A expenses and
comparison market profit.
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS
differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred on comparison market sales and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses.
Level of Trade/CEP Offset
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 as the EP transaction. The NV level of trade 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 SG&A expenses
and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade 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 examine 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 level of trade, 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 level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See
Notice of
[[Page 30480]]
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732
(November 19, 1997).
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information from each respondent about the marketing stages involved in
the reported U.S. and comparison market sales, including a description
of the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel
of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and third-
country market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in
the starting price before any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed
levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the
seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of
trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and
activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
In this review, all respondents claimed that all of their sales
were made through a similar channel of distribution (direct sales to
customers in export markets) and involved identical selling functions,
irrespective of market. In examining these selling functions, we found
that sales activities were limited to negotiating sales prices,
processing of purchase orders/contracts, invoicing, and collecting
payment; there was little or no strategic and economic planning,
advertising or sales promotion, technical services, technical
assistance, or after-sale service performed in either market.
Therefore, for all respondents we have preliminarily found that there
is a single (and identical) level of trade in each market, and no
level-of-trade adjustment is required for comparison of U.S. sales to
third-country sales.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 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. It is the Department's practice to
find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs
from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as
the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we
determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the benchmark
rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice. See
Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8,
1996).
Our preliminary analysis of Federal Reserve dollar-baht exchange
rate data shows that the value of the Thai baht in relation to the U.S.
dollar fell on July 2, 1997, by more than 18 percent from the previous
day and did not rebound significantly in a short time. This decline was
many times more severe than any single-day decline during several years
prior to that date. Had the baht rebounded quickly enough to recover
all or almost all of the loss, we might have considered this decline as
nothing more than a momentary drop, despite the magnitude of that drop.
However, because there was no significant rebound, we have
preliminarily determined that the decline in the baht from July 1,
1997, to July 2, 1997, was of such a magnitude that the dollar-baht
exchange rate cannot reasonably be viewed as having simply fluctuated
at this time, i.e., as having experienced only a momentary drop in
value, relative to the normal benchmark. Therefore, for exchange rates
between July 2 and August 27, 1997, we relied on the standard exchange
rate model, but used as the benchmark rate a stationary average of the
daily rates over this period. In this manner we used a post-precipitous
drop benchmark, but at the same time avoided undue daily fluctuations
in exchange rates. For the period after August 27, 1997, we used the
standard (rolling 40-day average) benchmark.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period July 1, 1997, through June 30,
1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Food Products Company Ltd............................. 3.26
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd..................... 9.93
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd.............................. 3.57
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd.......................... 3.35
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co. Ltd........................... 16.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a
hearing within thirty days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit
case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. The
Department will publish a notice of the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days from
publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Upon
completion of this review, the Department will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by
applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of CPF from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies
listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this
review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de
minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (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 LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
review or the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 24.64 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established
in the LTFV investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
[[Page 30481]]
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-14520 Filed 6-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P