[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77851-77852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-813]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple 
Fruit From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 8, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. This 
review covers nine producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The 
period of review (POR) is July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999. Based on 
our analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the 
preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the ``Final 
Results of Review'' section. Furthermore, we are not revoking the 
antidumping duty order with respect to Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. 
(Malee) given that shipments of this company's subject merchandise to 
the United States have not been made in commercial quantities for each 
of the three consecutive review periods that formed the basis of the 
revocation request.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or Charles Riggle, 
Office 5, Group II, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0631 and (202) 482-0650, 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 Department regulations are to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

    This review covers the following producers/exporters of merchandise 
subject to the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from 
Thailand: Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita); Siam Fruit Canning 
(1988) Co., Ltd. (SIFCO); Siam Food Products Public Co. Ltd. (SFP); The 
Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (TIPCO); Malee; The Prachuab Fruit 
Canning Company Ltd. (PRAFT); Thai Pineapple Canning Industry (TPC); 
Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. (TROFCO); and Kuiburi Fruit Canning 
Co. Ltd. (KFC),
    On August 8, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results 
of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination Not to Revoke Order 
in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 65 FR 48450 (Preliminary 
Results). On September 7 and 14, 2000, we received case briefs and/or 
rebuttal briefs, respectively, from the petitioners,\1\ SFP, TIPCO, 
Malee, TPC, and SIFCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this case are Maui Pineapple Company and 
the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is canned pineapple fruit (CPF). 
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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' 
(Decision Memorandum) from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, dated December 6, 2000, which is hereby 
adopted by this notice.
    A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to 
this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding

[[Page 77852]]

recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Determination Not To Revoke Order

    For the reasons outlined in the Decision Memorandum, we have 
determined not to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to 
subject merchandise produced and also exported by Malee, because its 
sales were not made in commercial quantities in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(ii).

Fair Value Comparisons

    We calculated export price (EP) and normal value (NV) based on the 
same methodology used in the preliminary results. We corrected clerical 
errors with respect to Malee and TPC.

Cost of Production

    We calculated the COP based on the same methodology used in the 
preliminary results, with the exception of PRAFT. For PRAFT we used the 
five-year historical net realizable value ratio for calculating the 
fruit cost used in the COP. For a further discussion of this issue, see 
the Decision Memorandum, Comment 4. We corrected clerical errors with 
respect to SFP.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 1998, 
through June 30, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Food Products Company Ltd..............................        0.37
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd......................        1.95
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd...............................        1.63
Thai Pineapple Canning Industry.............................        3.42
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd...........................        1.31
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co. Ltd............................        5.19
The Prachuab Fruit Canning Company Ltd......................        2.16
Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd...........................        4.02
Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd...............................        1.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject 
merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where 
the import-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will 
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on that 
importer's entries of subject merchandise.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a) 
of the Act: (1) For the companies named above, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate listed above, except where the margins are zero or de 
minimis no cash deposit will be required, (2) for merchandise exported 
by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in 
a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent 
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous 
segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise 
in these final results of review or in the most recent segment of the 
proceeding in which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither 
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or 
in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 
be 24.64 percent, the all others rate established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective 
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 6, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues Covered in Decision Memorandum

I. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO MALEE
    Comment 1: Revocation
    Comment 2: Imputed Credit Expenses
    Comment 3: Export Price (EP) vs. Constructed Export Price (CEP)
II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO PRAFT
    Comment 4: Fruit Cost Allocation
    Comment 5: Direct vs. Indirect Selling Expenses
III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO SIFCO
    Comment 6: Correction of Errors in Database
    Comment 7: Calculation of General and Administrative (G&A) 
Expense Ratio
    Comment 8: Calculation of Interest Expense Ratio
IV. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TIPCO
    Comment 9: Expenses Related to Compliance with the Antidumping 
Duty Order
    Comment 10: Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses
    Comment 11: Calculation of Interest Expense Ratio
    Comment 12: Offset to G&A
    Comment 13: Purchase of Input from Affiliated Party
    Comment 14: Offset to Cost of Manufacturing (COM)
    Comment 15: Clerical Error Allegation
V. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TPC
    Comment 16: Date of Sale
    Comment 17: EP vs. CEP
    Comment 18: Allocation of G&A to Arbitrage Activity
    Comment 19: Allocation of Interest Expense to Arbitrage Activity
    Comment 20: Clerical Error Allegation
VI. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO SFP
    Comment 21: Clerical Error Allegation
[FR Doc. 00-31751 Filed 12-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P