[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