[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66703-66708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28568]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]


Preliminary Results of First New Shipper Review and First 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely request from two manufacturer/
exporters and the petitioners,\1\ on March 30, 2000, the Department of 
Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China with respect to China Processed Food Import 
& Export Co., Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., Mei Wei Food Industry 
Co., Ltd., and Tak Fat Trading Co. The periods of review are August 5, 
1998, through January 31, 2000, for China Processed Food Import & 
Export Co. and Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., and May 7, 1998, through 
January 31, 2000, for Mei Wei Food Industry Co., Ltd. and Tak Fat 
Trading Co.\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 16875 (March 30, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are the Coalition for Fair Preserved 
Mushroom Trade which includes the American Mushroom Institute and 
the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Nottingham, PA; 
Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc., Toughkenamon, PA; Monterey Mushrooms, 
Inc., Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp., Temple, PA; 
Mushrooms Canning Company, Kennett Square, PA; Southwood Farms, 
Hockessin, DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; United Canning 
Corp., North Lima, OH.
    \2\ Because of an affirmative critical circumstance finding, 
liquidation was suspended 90 days prior to publication of the 
preliminary less-than-fair-value investigation for these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of these reviews, the Department of Commerce has 
preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for exports of the 
subject merchandise for the covered periods.
    On March 31, 2000, the Department of Commerce published a notice of 
initiation of a new shipper antidumping duty review of Raoping Xingyu 
Foods Co., Ltd. covering the period August 5, 1998, through January 31, 
2000. On June 30, and August 17, 2000, the Department of Commerce 
published the preliminary and final results, respectively, for exports 
by Mei Wei Food Industry Co., Ltd. and Tak Fat Trading Co. on an 
expedited basis. Therefore, this notice constitutes a preliminary 
results of administrative

[[Page 66704]]

review for China Processed Food Import & Export Co. and Gerber Food 
(Yunnan) Co., Ltd. and a preliminary results of new shipper review for 
Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with their arguments (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a 
brief summary of the arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2000.

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

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. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the three respondents that submitted 
full responses to the antidumping questionnaire for these reviews and 
have been found preliminarily to be entitled to a separate rate, we 
have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made below 
normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of these reviews, we will instruct the Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries on an importer-
specific or entry-specific basis, as applicable (see ``Assessment 
Rates'' section of this notice for further discussion).

Background

    On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (64 FR 8308) an antidumping duty order on certain preserved 
mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC). On February 14, 
2000, the Department published in the Federal Register (65 FR 7348) a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC 
covering the period August 5, 1998, through January 31, 2000. On 
February 22, 2000, the Department received a timely request from 
Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. (Raoping), in accordance with section 
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review 
of this antidumping duty order. On February 29, 2000, the petitioners 
requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that we conduct an 
administrative review of exports of certain preserved mushrooms from 
the PRC to the United States by China Processed Food Import & Export 
Co. (CPF), Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. (Gerber), Mei Wei Food Industry 
Co., Ltd. (Mei Wei), and Tak Fat Trading Co. (Tak Fat). CPF and Gerber 
also requested on February 28, 2000, that we conduct administrative 
reviews of their respective exports. On March 17, 2000, Raoping agreed 
to waive the time limits in order that the Department, pursuant to 19 
C.F.R 351.214(j)(3), may conduct this review concurrently with the 
first annual administrative review of this order.
    On March 29, 2000, the Department issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to CPF, Gerber, Raoping, Mei Wei, and Tak Fat. On March 
30, 2000, the Department published a notice of initiation of an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
preserved mushrooms from the PRC (65 FR 16875). On March 31, the 
Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper 
antidumping duty review with respect to Raoping (65 FR 17257). We 
received responses to the antidumping questionnaire during April and 
May 2000.
    On May 10, 2000, the Department provided the parties an opportunity 
to submit publicly available information (PAI) for consideration in 
these preliminary results.
    On June 30, 2000, we published separate preliminary results on an 
expedited basis for Mei Wei and Tak Fat who did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire (65 FR 40609). On August 17, 2000, the 
Department published the final results for exports by Mei Wei and Tak 
Fat (65 FR 50183), on an expedited basis.
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the 
respondents during June and July 2000. In July and August 2000, the 
Department received supplemental questionnaire responses from the 
respondents.
    On August 7, 2000, the petitioner requested that the Department 
rescind the instant review as to CPF claiming that, at this stage of 
the administrative review, substantial record evidence establishes that 
CPF had no entries of subject merchandise in the United States during 
the period of review (POR). On September 19, 2000, CPF argued that 
rescission is unwarranted because the Department's regulations do not 
make rescission mandatory under these circumstances and the Department 
has already spent substantial resources investigating CPF. The 
Department has not rescinded this review with respect to CPF because 
the sale by CPF to the United States was made during the POR and the 
entry information for this sale is part of the record of this review. 
See ``Rescission Request'' section below for further discussion.
    During the period August 31 through September 6, 2000, we conducted 
verifications of Raoping, Raoping's producer, Raoping Yucun Canned 
Foods Factory (Raoping Yucun), and Gerber. We issued verification 
reports on September 29, 2000, for the Raoping companies, and on 
October 2, 2000, for Gerber.
    The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with 
section 751 of the Act.

Rescission Request

    Under section 351.213(e) of the Department's regulations, an 
administrative review normally will cover, as appropriate, sales, 
exports, or entries of the subject merchandise made during the 
particular period under review. There is no requirement that both the 
sale and the entry corresponding to the particular sale both occur 
within the POR in order to review that sale/entry; however, we must be 
able to assess antidumping duties on entries, rather than sales, as a 
result of that review. Under section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's 
regulations, the Department may rescind an administrative review, in 
whole or only with respect to a particular producer or exporter, if it 
concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no 
entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may 
be. See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile: Final Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 43292, 43292-43293 
(July 13, 2000), where the Department rescinded the entire review 
because at least one respondent reported that it did not export the 
subject merchandise during the POR and U.S. Customs import statistics 
confirmed that there were no U.S. imports/entries of such merchandise 
by respondents or any other company during the POR. See Manganese Metal 
from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 64 FR 10986, 10986-
10987 (March 8, 1999) (in which case the Department rescinded a review 
with respect to two exporters, one of

[[Page 66705]]

which reported it made one sale during the previous POR which it 
believed was to be entered into the United States during the POR, but 
the Department could not establish, for duty assessment purposes, that 
it in fact was subsequently entered into the United States). In this 
case, CPF sold and exported the subject merchandise during the POR and 
placed information on the record indicating that the corresponding 
entry into the U.S. Customs territory was made shortly after the POR. 
Therefore, this case is properly distinguished from those cited above, 
and we do not find that recission of this administrative review with 
respect to CPF is appropriate in this instance. As stated in the 
``Assessment Rates'' section of this notice, we intend to issue entry-
specific liquidation instructions for each respondent (CPF and Raoping) 
whose sale and entry occurred in different PORs.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are certain preserved mushrooms 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
preserved mushrooms covered under this review 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 
this review 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 review 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing 
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the 
antidumping duty order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to this review is classifiable under 
subheadings 2003.1000.27, 2003.1000.31, 2003.1000.37, 2003.1000.43, 
2003.1000.47, 2003.1000.53, 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, our written 
description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the 
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and thus should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate. In this case, each 
respondent has requested a separate company-specific rate. Both Gerber 
and Raoping are either wholly or majority foreign-owned companies; 
therefore, we determined that no further separate rate analysis is 
required for these companies. CPF is wholly owned by China National 
Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., which in turn is 
owned by ``all the people.'' In the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation we determined that CPF was eligible for a separate rate. 
As stated in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide) and in the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of 
China, 60 FR 22545 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol), ownership of the 
company by ``all the people'' does not require the application of a 
single rate. Accordingly, CPF is eligible for consideration of a 
separate rate.
    The Department's separate rate test to determine whether the 
exporters are independent from government control is not concerned, in 
general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 
controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making 
process at the individual firm level. See e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified in 
Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the Department 
assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate 
the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over 
export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The respondents have placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Foreign Trade 
Law of the People's Republic of China'' and the ``Company Law of the 
People's Republic of China.''
    In prior cases, the Department has analyzed these laws and found 
that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-
Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic 
of China, 60 FR 54472 (October 24, 1995); see also Furfuryl Alcohol. We 
have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to 
reconsider this determination.
    Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that, within the preserved 
mushroom industry, there is an absence of de jure government control 
over exporting pricing and marketing decisions of firms.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or 
subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to

[[Page 66706]]

negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the 
respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether the 
respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. See Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol.
    CPF asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own export 
prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any 
governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel 
decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses 
profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell 
its assets and obtain loans. Additionally, CPF's questionnaire 
responses indicate that company-specific pricing during the POR does 
not suggest coordination among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of 
CPF's questionnaire responses reveals no other information indicating 
government control. This information supports a preliminary finding 
that there is an absence of de facto governmental control of CPF's 
export functions. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that CPF has 
met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by each 
respondent to the United States were made at LTFV, we compared the 
export price to the normal value, as described in the ``Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

    We used export price methodology in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise indicated.

1. CPF, Gerber, and Raoping

    We calculated export price based on packed, free on board (FOB) 
foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and 
handling in the PRC, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. 
Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees 
were provided by NME service providers or paid for in a NME currency, 
we based those charges on surrogate rates from India (see ``Surrogate 
Country'' section below). To value foreign inland trucking charges and 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we used November 1999 Indian 
freight companies' and freight forwarders' price quotes, respectively, 
obtained by the Department in other antidumping duty proceedings.
    The petitioners claim that Raoping's sale is not a bona fide 
transaction due to the circumstances surrounding the sale which are 
described in the Department's September 29, 2000, sales verification 
report. In prior cases the Department has considered factors such as 
timing, sale price, transportation costs, other expenses borne by the 
importer, and whether the merchandise was resold by the importer at a 
loss to determine whether a sale was a bona fide transaction. See 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 63 FR 47232 
(September 4, 1998) and American Silicon Technologies v. United States, 
CIT Slip Op. 00-84 (July 17, 2000).
    While we verified that the price for the sale under review is 
higher than that of certain subsequent sales of the same merchandise to 
the same customer, there is no evidence on the record to support a 
conclusion that the price for the reviewed sale is not commercially 
reasonable or was not a result of arm's-length bargaining, nor is there 
any record evidence that the importer resold the merchandise at a loss. 
Furthermore, the transportation costs and other expenses borne by the 
importer based on the respondent's reported terms of sale are 
consistent with those incurred by other importers of the subject 
merchandise in this administrative review and the LTFV investigation. 
In addition, while the sale occurred shortly before the end of the POR, 
the timing of the transaction is not a basis in and of itself to render 
the transaction not bona fide. Therefore, absent evidence to the 
contrary, we have determined Raoping's sale to be a bona fide 
transaction for purposes of this review.

Normal Value

A. Non-Market Economy Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a NME country. None of the parties to this 
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 
normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which 
applies to NME countries.

B. Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME, and (2) are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has determined that 
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines are 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development and are significant producers of the subject merchandise 
(see Memorandum dated April 19, 2000). According to the available 
information on the record, we have determined that India meets the 
statutory requirements for an appropriate surrogate country for the 
PRC. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian values for the PRC 
producers' factors of production, except, as noted below, in certain 
instances where an input was sourced from a market economy and paid for 
in a market economy currency. We have obtained and relied upon PAI 
wherever possible.

C. Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by the companies in the PRC 
which produced mushrooms for the exporters which sold mushrooms to the 
United States during the POR. To calculate NV, the reported unit factor 
quantities were multiplied by publicly available Indian values, where 
possible.
    Where appropriate, we recalculated the reported mushroom 
consumption factor for purchased brined mushrooms to an amount 
equivalent to consumption of fresh mushrooms. Specifically, for Gerber, 
we made this adjustment based on the fresh mushroom consumption used in 
its own production of brined mushrooms. For Raoping, which only 
consumed purchased brined mushrooms in its production of the subject 
merchandise, as facts available, we applied an estimated adjustment 
factor based on information obtained from the U.S. industry. As in the 
LTFV investigation, we made these adjustments because we were unable to 
identify a surrogate value for brined mushrooms (see below).
    We made the following additional adjustments to the reported 
factors of production:

China Processed

    1. We adjusted all factors of production reported by China

[[Page 66707]]

Processed's supplier, Yu Xing Fruit and Vegetable Development Co., Ltd. 
(Yu Xing), to reflect a drained-weight basis, using data in China 
Processed's questionnaire responses.
    2. We recalculated Yu Xing's reported tin plate consumption (used 
to make cans) by dividing total reported POR tin plate consumption by 
the POR preserved mushrooms production amount. We made this adjustment 
in order to reflect a drained-weight mushroom basis, and to insure that 
all tin plate consumed, including waste, was accounted for.

Gerber

    1. We incorporated Gerber's pre-verification revisions and our 
verification findings.
    2. We added an additional amount of electricity consumption to 
account for production-related electricity not included in Gerber's 
factor reporting, based on our verification findings. See Memorandum 
entitled Gerber Preliminary Results Margin Calculation, dated October 
31, 2000.
    Raoping reported that it purchased cans from a market-economy 
supplier (i.e., a Hong Kong trading company) and paid for them in U.S. 
dollars. The petitioners point out that Raoping did not demonstrate 
that the cans were actually manufactured in a market economy. However, 
Raoping did show that the material was obtained from a market-economy 
supplier and that it paid for the material in a market-economy 
currency. Further, we found no evidence at verification to indicate 
that the cans were not actually produced in a market economy. 
Accordingly, we have valued Raoping's consumption of cans and lids 
based on the U.S. dollar prices it paid for them to the Hong Kong 
supplier. As appropriate, for these imported materials, we calculated 
PRC brokerage and inland freight from the port to the factory using 
surrogate rates from India. We valued the remaining factors using PAI 
from India, except where noted below. Where a producer did not report 
the distance between the material supplier and the factory, as facts 
available, we used either the distance to the nearest seaport (if an 
import value was used as the surrogate value for the factor) or the 
farthest distance reported for a supplier of any agricultural or 
chemical input, as appropriate.
    The selection of the surrogate values applied in this determination 
was based on the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 
Wherever possible and appropriate, we used non-producer specific prices 
in accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations at 62 
FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices to reflect delivered values. For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency, we 
adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics. A 
complete analysis of the surrogate values may be found in the 
Preliminary Determination Valuation Memorandum from the Team to the 
File (Preliminary Determination Valuation Memorandum), dated October 
31, 2000.
    We valued the major material inputs used in the production of the 
subject merchandise using the following sources. For fresh and brined 
mushrooms, we used the simple average of the fresh mushrooms prices 
quoted in the Indian publication The Economic Times during the POR. We 
valued cans for Gerber using the weighted-average per-piece value 
derived from the notes to the Indian producer Agro Dutch Industries, 
Ltd.''s 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 financial statements. We valued tin 
plate for CPF using the Commodity Trade Statistics published by the 
United Nations Statistics Division (United Nations Statistics).
    For other raw materials and packing materials, such as growing 
inputs, chemicals, and cardboard cartons, we derived unit values from 
Indian preserved mushroom producers' financial statements, the Monthly 
Trade Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports (Indian 
Import Statistics), or the Indian publication Chemical Weekly. 
    We valued calcium super phosphate and calcium phosphate using the 
U.S. price quoted in the U.S. publication Chemical Marketing Reporter 
because it was the only information on the record for these inputs.
    For certain materials reportedly consumed in small quantities, such 
as cotton wadding, HCHO, and single super phosphate, we were unable to 
identify appropriate surrogate values. Therefore, we have not included 
these factors in our preliminary results normal value calculation.
    Raoping claimed that it resold scrap can material but failed to 
provide documentation at verification to demonstrate that the scrap 
material was actually resold. Therefore, we have not made an offset 
deduction to the surrogate cost of production for can scrap because 
Raoping has not met the burden under 19 CFR 351.401(b) to demonstrate 
its entitlement to the offset.
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value electricity, we used the average rupees/kilowatt hour 
derived from four Indian preserved-mushroom producing companies' annual 
reports for April 1998 through March 1999. In certain recent cases 
(e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
30067, 30067-8 (May 10, 2000)), the Department has used publicly 
available information based on an aggregate of Indian state and 
regional electricity rates in order to fulfill the regulatory 
preference for valuing electricity. In the instant review, we 
preliminarily determined it appropriate to use an alternative 
methodology based on the contemporaneity and specificity of the data 
employed as well as other factors. See Preliminary Determination 
Valuation Memorandum for further discussion. We based the value of coal 
on the average of the rupees/metric ton rate of ``Coal (for steam 
raising)'' from Polychem, Ltd.''s annual report for April 1998 through 
March 1999 and the United Nations Statistics. We did not value water 
separately because it appeared to be included in factory overhead.
    We based our calculation of factory overhead (including water), 
SG&A expenses, and profit on the simple average of the corresponding 
data of three Indian preserved mushroom producers whose production and 
sales activity is mostly preserved mushrooms and other food products 
who were profitable during the POR.
    To value truck freight rates, we used November 1999 Indian freight 
companies' price quotes discussed in the ``Export Price'' section 
above. With regard to rail freight, we based our calculation on 
information from the Indian Railway Conference Association.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 
(CAFC's) decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (CAFC 
1997) requires that we revise our calculation of source-to-factory 
surrogate freight for those material inputs that are based on CIF 
import values in the surrogate country. Therefore, we have added to CIF 
surrogate values from India a surrogate freight cost using the shorter 
of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to the 
factory or from the domestic supplier to the factory on an import-
specific basis.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the August 5, 1998, through 
January 31, 2000 POR are as follows:

[[Page 66708]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Margin
                 Manufacturer/producer/exporter                  percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd................................     99.69
 China Processed Food Import & Export Co......................      0.00
 Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd................................     42.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 30 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.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case 
briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the 
issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later 
than 30 days and 35 days, respectively, from the date of publication of 
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties who 
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a 
summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of 
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.
    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, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of 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 issues to be discussed.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 
submit additional publicly available information to value the factors 
of production for the final results of these reviews until 20 days 
after publication of these results, unless a written request for an 
extension is received and granted.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon 
completion of these reviews. The final results of these reviews shall 
be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of 
merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for 
future deposits of estimated duties. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), 
we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties all entries for any importer for whom the assessment 
rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). For assessment 
purposes, we intend to calculate entry-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates (for CPF and Raoping whose sale and entry occurred in 
different PORs) or importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates 
(for Gerber) based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping 
margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those same sales.
    This notice also 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 these review periods. 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of these administrative and new shipper reviews, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
each reviewed company will be that established in the final results of 
these reviews, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate 
rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate 
for all other PRC manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 198.63 
percent, the ``PRC-Wide'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
investigation; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate 
will continue to be 198.63 percent, the ``PRC-Wide'' rate made 
effective by the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-28568 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P