[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18431-18438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8661]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-337-803]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by eleven producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise and the petitioners, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. This review 
covers eleven producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The 
period of review (POR) is July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by the 
respondents under review have not been made below normal value (NV). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will 
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR without regard to antidumping 
duties.
    We are also preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to 
two producers.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these 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. Further, we would appreciate parties submitting comments to 
provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of 
any such comments on diskette.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or Gabriel Adler, at 
(202) 482-3003 or (202) 482-3813, respectively; AD/CVC Enforcement 
Office V, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

Case History

    On July 30, 1998, the Department issued an antidumping duty order 
on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. See Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 40699 (July

[[Page 18432]]

30, 1998). On July 20, 2000, the Department issued a notice of 
opportunity to request the second administrative review of this order. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 65 FR 
45037 (July 20, 2000).
    On July 28 and July 31, 2000, the following companies requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review for the period 
from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000: (1) Cultivadora de Salmones 
Linao Ltda. (Linao); (2) Cultivos Marinos Chiloe Ltda. (Cultivos 
Marinos); (3) Fiordo Blanco, S.A. (Fiordo Blanco); (4) Pesca Chile S.A. 
(Pesca Chile); (5) Pesquera Eicosal Ltda. (Eicosal); (6) Pesquera Mares 
Australes (Mares Australes); (7) Salmones Mainstream S.A. (Mainstream); 
(8) Salmones Multiexport Ltda. (Multiexport); (9) Salmones Pacific Star 
(Pacific Star); (10) Salmones Pacifico Sur, S.A. (Pacifico Sur); and 
(11) Salmones Tecmar, S.A. (Tecmar).
    Also on July 31, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the 
Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade (the petitioners) requested a 
review of 83 producers/exporters of fresh Atlantic salmon. As explained 
below, the petitioners subsequently withdrew their request for review 
of 70 of these companies.
    On August 25, 2000, we issued the notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period July 1, 
1999, through June 30, 2000. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 65 FR 53980 (September 6, 2000).
    Per letters filed on September 12 and 26, and October 16, 2000, the 
petitioners withdrew their request for review for all companies except 
the following: (1) Chisal S.A. (Chisal); (2) Cultivos Marinos; (3) 
Eicosal; (4) Fitz Roy S.A. (Fitz Roy); (5) Fiordo Blanco; (6) Linao; 
(7) Mainstream; (8) Mares Australes; (9) Multiexport; (10) Pacific 
Star; (11) Pacifico Sur; (12) Pesca Chile; and (13) Tecmar. The 
Department published a notice rescinding the review with respect to the 
other 70 companies named by the petitioners. See Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 81487 (December 26, 
2000).

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

    Chisal and Fitz Roy each certified to the Department that it had 
not shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
Our examination of entry data for U.S. imports confirmed that neither 
company had shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 315.213(d)(3), we preliminarily 
rescinding the review with respect to these two companies.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is fresh, farmed Atlantic 
salmon, whether imported ``dressed'' or cut. Atlantic salmon is the 
species Salmo salar, in the genus Salmo of the family salmoninae. 
``Dressed'' Atlantic salmon refers to salmon that has been bled, 
gutted, and cleaned. Dressed Atlantic salmon may be imported with the 
head on or off; with the tail on or off; and with the gills in or out. 
All cuts of fresh Atlantic salmon are included in the scope of the 
review. Examples of cuts include, but are not limited to: crosswise 
cuts (steaks), lengthwise cuts (fillets), lengthwise cuts attached by 
skin (butterfly cuts), combinations of crosswise and lengthwise cuts 
(combination packages), and Atlantic salmon that is minced, shredded, 
or ground. Cuts may be subjected to various degrees of trimming, and 
imported with the skin on or off and with the ``pin bones'' in or out.
    Excluded from the scope are (1) fresh Atlantic salmon that is ``not 
farmed'' (i.e., wild Atlantic salmon); (2) live Atlantic salmon; and 
(3) Atlantic salmon that has been subject to further processing, such 
as frozen, canned, dried, and smoked Atlantic salmon, or processed into 
forms such as sausages, hot dogs, and burgers.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable as 
item numbers 0302.12.0003 and 0304.10.4093, 0304.90.1009, 0304.90.1089, 
and 03040.90.9091 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS). although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the Export 
Price and Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this 
notice. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products 
sold in the United States and comparison markets that are identical 
with respect to the matching characteristics. Pursuant to section 
771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondents that fit 
the definition of the scope of the review and were sold in the 
comparison markets during the POR fall within the definition of the 
foreign like product. We have relied on four criteria to match U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign 
like product: form, grade, weight band, and trim. As in the first 
administrative review, we have determined that it is generally not 
possible to match products of dissimilar forms, grades, and weight 
bands, because there are significant differences among products that 
cannot be accounted for by means of a difference-in-merchandise 
adjustment; we did, where appropriate, make comparisons of merchandise 
with different trims. (Unlike the other three physical characteristics, 
trim is the result of a processing operation with readily identifiable 
differences in the variable cost of manufacturing, which permits the 
comparison of similar products with a difference-in-merchandise 
adjustment.) See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 65 FR 78472 
(December 15, 2000). Where there were no appropriate sales of 
comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United 
States to constructed value (CV).

Collapse of Affiliated Parties

    Section 351.401(f)(1) of the Department's regulations provides for 
affiliated producers of subject merchandise to be treated as a single 
entity (i.e., collapsed), where (1) those producers have production 
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities and (2) the Department concludes that there is 
a significant potential for manipulation of price or production. 
Section 351.401(f)(2) of the Department's regulations provides factors 
for the Department to consider when looking for a significant potential 
for manipulation of price or production, namely (i) the level of common 
ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board 
members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated 
firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the 
sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing 
decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant 
transactions between the affiliated producers.
    The questionnaire responses submitted by respondent Mares Australes 
on October 13, 2000, and other information on the record of this 
review, provide evidence that during the POR Mares Australes was 
affiliated with another producer of subject

[[Page 18433]]

merchandise, Marine Harvest S.A. (Marine Harvest), and that the above-
referenced criteria for collapsing these companies were met.
    First, the record establishes that Mares Australes and Marine 
Harvest were under common ownership by another company. Therefore, the 
two companies are affiliated under section 771(33)(F) the Act (which 
deems ``two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person'' to be 
affiliated).
    Second, Mares Australes and Marine Harvest had production 
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility to restructure manufacturing 
priorities, inasmuch as the vast majority of their sales of subject 
merchandise involved premium-grade fillets of fresh Atlantic salmon.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that the operation of Mares Australes and Marine 
Harvest were not identical. For instance, Marine Harvest had its own 
processing plant, while Mares Australes subcontracted procession; 
Mares Australes had access to feed from a closely affiliated 
supplier, while Marine Harvest obtained most of its feed from 
unaffiliated suppliers. Nonetheless, the operations of the two 
companies produced virtually indistinguishable premium-grade salmon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, there was a significant potential for manipulation of price 
or production, inasmuch as (i) the two companies were entirely under 
common control; (ii) throughout the POR, the two companies were in the 
process of merging their management structure, and, by the end of the 
period, were under common management; and (iii) the two companies 
shared sales information through their common management, and also had 
significant transactions between them.
    Given this, the Department has preliminarily determined to collapse 
Mares Australes and Marine Harvest.\2\ The preliminary dumping margin 
calculated for Mares Australes reflects sales and cost data provided by 
both Mares Australes and Marine Harvest.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that Marine Harvest was found to be dumping at de 
minimis levels in the LTFV investigation, and was excluded from the 
antidumping order on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. See Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 
40699 (July 30, 1998). Therefore, entries from the Harvest during 
the POR were not suspended. However, to the extent that Mares 
Australes and Marine Harvest became affiliated during the period of 
this review, and that the standard for collapsing is met, it is 
necessary to incorporate the sales and cost data of Marine Harvest 
in the Calculation of the dumping margin for Mares Australes during 
the period.
    \3\ Mares Australes submitted Marine Harvest data through 
questionnaire responses dated November 27, 2000, and January 10 and 
February 2, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP as defined sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. 
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold by the exporter or producer outside the 
United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the 
United States, before the date of importation, or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States. Section 772(b) of the 
Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first 
sold inside the United States before or after the date of importation, 
by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, 
or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an 
unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under subsections 772(c) and (d) of 
the Act.
    For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, 
based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer 
in the United States. Where sales were made through an unaffiliated 
consignment broker, we did not consider the consignment broker to be 
the customer; rather, we considered the customer to be the consignment 
broker's customer.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we reduced the EP 
and CEP by movement expenses and export taxes and duties, where 
appropriate. Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional 
adjustments to CEP. In this case, CEP sales were made through 
unaffiliated consignment brokers for the account of the producer/
exporter. Consistent with past practice, for these sales we deducted 
from the CEP commissions charged to, and other direct expenses incurred 
for the account of, the producer/exporter. See Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon 
From Chile, 65 FR 48457, 48460 (August 8, 2000). We did not deduct an 
amount for CEP profit for these sales, because the commission already 
contains an element for profit realized by the unaffiliated consignment 
broker.
    We determined the EP or CEP for each company as follows:

Cultivos Marinos

    We calculated an EP for all of Cultivos Marinos' sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Cultivos Marinos 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 made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign inland 
freight, international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also 
deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and 
added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act.

Eicosal

    We calculated an EP for all of Eicosal's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Eicosal 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 made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted 
the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added 
duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Fiordo Blanco

    During the POR, Fiordo Blanco made CEP transactions. We calculated 
a CEP for sales made by Fiordo Blanco's affiliated U.S. reseller after 
importation of the subject merchandise into the United States. CEP 
sales were based on the packed price for exportation to the Untied 
States. We made deductions from the starting price fro rebates, as well 
as movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act. These include inland freight, international freight, brokerage and 
handling, and U.S. duties. We also added the amount for duty drawback, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses incurred by the affiliated reseller 
in the United States. We also deducted an amount for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Linano

    During the POR, Liano made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Linao 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 a CEP for sales made for the account of the

[[Page 18434]]

producer/exporter by an unaffiliated consignment broker in the Untied 
States after the date of importation. EP and CEP sales were based on 
the packed, delivered and duty-paid (DDP) U.S. port and C&F U.S. port 
prices for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price for discounts and rebates, as well as movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
include inland freight, international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. 
duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the 
starting price and added the amount for duty drawback, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including commissions, direct selling expenses (credit expenses and 
industry association fees), and indirect selling expenses incurred in 
the United States by the unaffiliated consignment broker on behalf of 
the exporter which was charged to the respondent separately from the 
commission.

Mainstream

    We calculated an EP for all of Mainstream's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Mainstream 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 made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, 
international freight, brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. 
We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting 
price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act.

Mares Australes

    During the POR, Mares Australes had both EP and CEP transactions. 
We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly 
by Mares Australes to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the Untied 
States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based 
on the facts of record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Mares 
Australes' affiliated U.S. reseller after importation of the subject 
merchandise into the United States. We made deductions from the 
starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, customs 
brokerage fees, international freight, U.S. customs duties and U.S. 
handling charges. We also added duty drawback, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (including credit expenses and 
miscellaneous direct selling expenses), and indirect selling expenses 
incurred by the affiliated reseller in the United States. We also 
deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 
772(d)(3) of the Act.

Multiexport

    During the POR, Multiexport made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Multiexport 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 a CEP for sales made for the account of 
the producer/exporter by an affiliated reseller in the United States 
after the date of importation. EP and CEP sales were based on the 
packed price for exportation to the United States. We made deductions 
from the starting price for rebates, as well as movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland 
freight, international freight, and U.S. duties. We also added the 
amounts for delivery revenues and for duty drawback, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (including credit expenses and 
miscellaneous direct selling expenses), and indirect selling expenses 
incurred by the affiliated reseller in the United States. We also 
deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 
772(d)(3) of the Act.

Pacific Star

    We calculated an EP for all of Pacific Star's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Pacific Star 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 made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, customs 
brokerage and handling fees, international freight, U.S. customs duties 
and U.S. handling charges. We also added duty drawback, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Pacifico Sur

    During the POR, Pacifico Sur made EP transactions. We calculated an 
EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Pacifico Sur to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of 
record. EP sales were based on the packed DDP U.S. port and C&F port 
prices for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from 
the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, international 
freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also added the amount for 
duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Pesca Chile

    During the POR, Pesca Chile made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Pesca Chile 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 a CEP for sales made for the account of 
the producer/exporter by an affiliated reseller in the United States 
after the date of importation. We made deductions from the starting 
price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. These include inland freight, international freight, U.S. 
brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also added the amount for duty drawback, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including commissions and other direct selling expenses (credit, 
inspection association fees, and airline service charges). We also 
deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 
772(d)(3) of the Act.

Tecmar

    We calculated an EP for all of Tecmar's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Tecmar 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 made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section

[[Page 18435]]

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight, international 
freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties. We also added 
the amount for duty drawback to the starting price, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market 
sales and U.S. sales by Cultivos Marinos and Eicosal, we determined 
that the quantity of foreign like product sold in Chile permitted a 
proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the 
United States pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because the 
quantity of sales in the home market was more than five percent of the 
quantity of sales to the U.S. market. Accordingly, for those two 
respondents we based NV on home market sales.
    Respondents Fiordo Blanco, Linao, Mainstream, Mares Australes, 
Multiexport, Pacific Star, Pacifico Sur, Pesca Chile, and Tecmar did 
not have viable home markets, as defined above. Therefore, for these 
respondents, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) 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. For 
Mainstream, Mares Australes, Multiexport and Pesca Chile, the largest 
third-country market is Brazil; for Tecmar, the largest third-country 
market is Argentina and for Fiordo Blanco, the largest third country 
market is Canada.
    Respondents Linao, Pacific Star and Pacifico Sur did not have any 
viable comparison market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e) 
of the Act, we based NV for these respondents on CV.
    We note that on November 14, 2000, the petitioners alleged the 
existence of particular market situations in the home market, Argentina 
and Brazil, and argued that the Department should not rely on sales in 
those markets as the basis for normal value. The allegations were based 
on the fact that the vast majority of sales by these companies to the 
United States consisted of fillets, while nearly all of their sales to 
the home market, Argentina and Brazil consisted of whole salmon. The 
petitioners also argued that the home, Argentine and Brazilian markets 
for premium-grade salmon (the grade of salmon principally sold in the 
United States) were developed only very recently.
    We have not accepted these allegations for purposes of the 
preliminary results of this review. By way of background, we note that 
the Department examined allegations of particular market situations in 
both the investigation and the first administrative review. In the 
investigation, the petitioners alleged that home market sales by two 
respondents reflected a particular market situation, and the Department 
agreed, finding that the respondents' home market sales involved almost 
exclusively off-quality merchandise, which local customers picked up at 
the producers' facilities for salvage prices. In the first review, the 
petitioners again filed an allegation that home market sales by certain 
respondents, as well as sales to Brazil by Mainstream, reflected a 
particular market situation. The Department disagreed, finding that 
these respondents had made significant sales of premium-grade salmon to 
customers with an established demand for such merchandise, and that the 
markets in question, while established in recent years, provided a 
legitimate demand for sales of comparable merchandise. See Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon 
from Chile, 65 FR 48457 (August 8, 2000), at note 2, and the ``Issues 
and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the First 
Administrative Review of Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile'' (dated 
November 16, 2000), Comment 5, at 7.
    In the instant review, we similarly find that the home market and 
third country sales in question do not reflect a particular market 
situation. These sales involved premium-grade salmon purchased by 
customers with a specific demand for such merchandise. The markets in 
question, while developed more recently than the U.S. market for fresh 
Atlantic salmon, are legitimate and allow for proper comparisons of 
U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We note that during the antidumping investigation, certain 
respondents had argued that a particular market situation existed in 
the Japanese market because sales to the market consisted almost 
entirely of whole salmon, while U.S. sales consisted almost entirely 
of fillets. The petitioners objected to those arguments, arguing 
that sales of whole fish constituted sales of the foreign like 
product, and should be used to calculate normal value regardless of 
their degree of comparability to sales of fillets. The Department 
agreed with the petitioners in that case. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic 
Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 31411, 31418 (Comment 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on timely allegation filed by the petitioners, we initiated a 
cost of production (COP) investigation of Multiexport, to determine 
whether sales were made at prices below the COP. See Memorandum From 
Case Analysts to Gary Taverman, dated January 10, 2001. In addition, 
because we disregarded below-cost sales in the calculation of the final 
results of the first administrative review of Eicosal and Pacific Star, 
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales 
of the foreign like product by these companies have been made at prices 
below the COP during the period of the second review. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we also initiated COP 
investigations of sales by Eicosal and Pacific Star.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On January 6, 2001, the petitioners also filed a cost 
allegation with respect to Pesca Chile. On March 6, 2001, the 
Department determined that this allegation was inadequate, and did 
not initiate a cost investigation with respect to that respondent. 
See Memorandum from Case Analyst to Holly Kuga, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 22, 
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, 
fabrication, and general expenses. We relied on the submitted COPs 
except in the specific instances noted below, where the submitted costs 
were not appropriately quantified or valued.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    As required by section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the adjusted 
weighted-average COP for each respondent subject to a cost 
investigation of the comparison-market sales prices 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.
3. Results of the COP Test
    We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP 
and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial

[[Page 18436]]

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 determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at 
prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Eicosal was the only respondent for which we disregarded comparison 
market sales.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We determined price-based NVs for respondent companies as follows. 
For all respondents, we made adjustments for any differences in 
packing, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, and we 
deducted movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the 
Act. In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences 
in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act. We also made adjustments, pursuant to 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).
    Company-specific adjustments are described below.

Cultivos Marinos

    We based home market prices on the packed, delivered or ex factory 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting 
price for foreign inland freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit). We also deducted home 
market packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses.

Eicosal

    We based home market prices on the packed, FOB airport or delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting 
price for foreign inland freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expense). We also 
deducted home market packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses.

Fiordo Blanco

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB port of 
entry or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We 
adjusted for the following movement expenses: Foreign inland freight, 
international freight, brokerage and handling charges and U.S. custom 
fees. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country market sales (including credit and warranty 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (including credit and 
warranty expenses). We also added the amount for third-country duty 
drawback to the starting price. In addition, we deducted third-country 
packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses.

Mainstream

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB airport 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the 
following movement expenses: Foreign inland freight, international 
freight, customs fees and airport handling charges. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit). We also added the amount for third-country duty drawback to 
the starting price. In addition, we deducted third-country packing 
expenses and added U.S. packing expenses.

Mares Australes

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: Foreign inland freight, international freight and 
brokerage and handling. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit and 
re-packing expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, including 
credit. We also added the amount for third-country duty drawback to the 
starting price. In addition, we deducted third-country packaging 
expenses and added U.S. packing expenses.

Multiexport

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: Foreign inland freight, international freight and 
brokerage and handling. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales, including 
credit, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, including credit. We 
also added the amount for third-country duty drawback to the starting 
price. In addition, we deducted third-countries packing expenses and 
added U.S. packing expenses.

Pesca Chile

    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: Foreign inland freight, international freight and 
brokerage and handling. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (including 
credit, airline service charges and inspection expenses). We also added 
an amount for third-county duty drawback to the starting price. In 
addition, we deducted third-country packing expending and added U.S. 
packing expenses.

Tecmar

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB plant or 
C&F port city prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Argentina. We 
adjusted for the following movement expenses: Foreign inland freight, 
international freight and brokerage and handling. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (including credit, quality control, and health 
certification) and adding U.S. directs expenses (including credit, 
quality control, and health certification). We also added the amount 
for third-country duty drawback to the starting price. In addition, we 
deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S. packing 
expenses.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For those sales for which we could not determine NV based on 
comparison-market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of 
a comparable product in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP, 
or CEP, to CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing, For Eicosal, 
Fiordo Blanco, Mares Australes, Multiexport, Pacific Star, and Tecmar, 
we calculated CV based on the methodology described in the COP section 
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 comparison market to 
calculate SG&A expenses and profit. For Linao and Pacifico Sur, which 
had no comparison market sales, we calculated CV following the same

[[Page 18437]]

methodology, except that we relied on the weighted-average SG&A and 
profit ratios of the two respondents that had a viable home market, 
consistent with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS 
differences, pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Company-specific 
adjustments are described below.

Eicosal

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit expense).

Fiordo Blanco

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country sales (including credit and warranty 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct expenses (including credit and re-
packing expenses).

Linao

    We made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(including credit, inspection and certification expenses) and deducting 
the weighted-average direct selling expenses incurred by the two 
respondents that had a viable home market during the period.

Mares Australes

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country sales (credit, re-packing expenses, and 
miscellaneous direct selling expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit expenses and miscellaneous direct selling expenses).

Multiexport

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit expense).

Pacific Star

    We made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(including credit and inspection expenses) and deducting the weighted-
average direct selling expenses incurred by the two respondents that 
had a viable home market during the period.

Pacifico Sur

    We made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(including credit and inspection expenses) and deducting the weighted-
average direct selling expenses incurred by the two respondents that 
had a viable home market during the period. Because Pacifico Sur had 
commissions in the U.S. market, we also adjusted the CV by a commission 
offset, based on the weighted-average indirect selling expenses 
incurred by the two respondents that had a viable home market during 
the period.

Tecmar

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for third-country market sales (credit, quality control, and 
health certification expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit, quality control, and health certification 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 or CEP transaction. The NV level of 
trade is that of the starting-price sale in the comparison market or, 
when the 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 the export to 
the importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP, 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 with U.S. sales, 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 pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision).
    To apply these guidelines in this review, we obtained information 
from each respondent about the marketing stage involved in its reported 
U.S. and comparison-market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by the respondent for each of its channels 
of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison 
market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the 
starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered 
only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction 
of expenses and profit pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. 
Generally, if the 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 conducting our level-of-trade analysis for each respondent, we 
took into account the specific customer types, channels of 
distribution, and selling practices of each respondent. We found that, 
for all respondents, the fact pattern was virtually identical. Sales to 
both the U.S. and comparison markets were made to distributors, 
retailers, and, less commonly, to further-processors. In all cases, the 
selling functions performed by the respondents for the different 
customer types and channels of distribution were very limited, and 
identical in both markets. Therefore, for all respondents, we found 
that there was a single level of trade in the United States, and a 
single, identical level of trade in the comparison market. As such, it 
was not necessary to make any level of trade adjustments.

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 date 
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 1999, 
through June 30, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                       margin
                                                             percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultivos Marinos..........................................      \1\ 0.02
Eicosal...................................................          0.00
Fiordo Blanco.............................................      \1\ 0.27
Linao.....................................................      \1\ 0.11
Mainstream................................................      \1\ 0.02
Mares Australes...........................................          0.00
Multiexport...............................................          0.00
Pacific Star..............................................          0.00
Pacifico Sur..............................................          0.00
Pesca Chile...............................................      \1\ 0.06
Tecmar....................................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ De minimis.

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days

[[Page 18438]]

of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 
to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or 
comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the 
argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate 
it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department 
with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on 
diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We calculated importer-
specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total 
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the 
total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that 
importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile 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 conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 4.57 
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) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entities 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective January 20, 
2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 2, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-8661 Filed 4-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M