[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26831-26835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-337-805, A-201-829]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Spring Table 
Grapes From Chile and Mexico

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

ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Kinsella (for Chile) or Irina 
Itkin (for Mexico) at (202) 482-0194 and (202) 482-0656, respectively; 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

[[Page 26832]]

the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of 
Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are references to the 
provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).

The Petitions

    On March 30, 2001, the Department received petitions filed in 
proper form by The Desert Grape Growers League of California and its 
members (collectively ``the League''). The Department received 
information supplementing the petitions throughout the initiation 
period.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that imports of spring table grapes from Chile and Mexico are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such 
imports are materially injuring an industry in the United States.
    On April 12 and 13, 2001, we received submissions from the 
Asociacion Agricola Local de Productores de Uva de Mesa, A.C. (AALPUM) 
and the Asociacion de Exportadores de Chile (ASOEX), associations of 
exporters of the subject merchandise in Mexico and Chile, respectively, 
which challenged the basis for the petitioners' claim of industry 
support. On April 19, 2001, the petitioners filed a response. On April 
24, 2001, AALPUM and ASOEX submitted additional comments on the issue 
of industry support, and the petitioners responded to these comments on 
April 30, 2001. Moreover, in April and May 2001, the Department 
received a number of letters from producers of table grapes in 
California opposing the petitions. In addition, we received several 
letters from California table grape producers supporting the petitions. 
The Department has taken these submissions into consideration in making 
the initiation determination.
    Pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) the Department extended the 
deadline for initiation to no later than May 9, 2001.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (E) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the 
antidumping investigations that they are requesting the Department to 
initiate (see the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section, below).

Scope of Investigations

    The scope of these investigations includes imports of any variety 
of vitis vinifera species table grapes from Chile or Mexico, entered 
during the period April 1 through June 30, inclusive, regardless of 
grade, size, maturity, horticulture method (i.e., organic or not) or 
the size of the container in which packed. The scope specifically 
covers all varieties of seedless or seeded grapes including, but not 
limited to, Thompson, Red Flame, Red Globe, Perlettes, Superior 
seedless, Sugrone, Ribier, Black seedless, Red seedless, Blanca Italia, 
Moscatel Rosada, Crimson seedless, Lavallee, Emperor, Queen Rose, 
Calmeria, Christmas Rose, Down seedless, Beauty seedless, Almeria, 
Supreme seedless, Superior Seedless M., Late Royal, Muscat seedless, 
Royal seedless, Early Ribier, Cardinal, Moscatel Dorada, Black Giant, 
Kaiji, Lady Rose, Black Diamond, Piruviano, Early Thompson, King Ruby 
seedless, White seedless, Queen seedless, Autumn seedless, Royal, Pink 
seedless, Green Globe, Autumn Black, Black Beauty, and Royal Giant. The 
scope specifically covers all table grapes entered within the April 1 
through June 30 window of each year, whether or not subject to the 
Federal Marketing Order set forth in 7 CFR, part 925. For further 
discussion, see the May 9, 2001, memorandum from the case team to 
Richard Moreland and Joseph Spetrini entitled ``Temporal Limitations on 
the Class or Kind Described in the Antidumping Duty Petitions on Spring 
Table Grapes from Mexico and Chile.''
    The scope excludes by-product grapes and other grapes for use as 
other than table grapes, including those grapes used for raisins, 
crushing, juice, wine, canning, processed foods and other by-product 
and not direct consumption purposes.
    The spring table grapes subject to these investigations are 
classifiable under subheading 0806.10.40 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. We note that the scope in the 
petitions included all spring table grapes harvested through June 30 of 
each year. However, the U.S. Customs Service has informed us that 
including a harvesting limitation would lead to problems in its 
administering these cases. See the April 11, 2001, memorandum from 
Chief, Special Products Branch at the United States Customs Service to 
David Goldberger entitled ``Proposed Scope Language, Spring Table 
Grapes from Chile and Mexico.'' We agree that including grapes 
harvested through June 30 will raise major questions for imports after 
June 30. As a consequence, we have not included spring table grapes 
harvested during the period April 1 though June 30 but entered after 
that period in the scope of the merchandise under investigation. We 
have discussed this scope modification with the petitioners.
    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (see 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 
27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication 
of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period 
of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to 
the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Class or Kind

    In addition to describing the physical product at issue, the 
antidumping duty petitions on spring table grapes from Mexico and Chile 
limit the class or kind to table grapes entered in the spring. Parties 
have argued that the Department does not have the authority to accept a 
class or kind limited to imports during certain periods, or, in the 
alternative, that the temporal limitations in this case are not 
appropriate. However, in the view of the Department the statute does 
not preclude a limitation on subject merchandise according to the time 
of year during which that merchandise was produced or entered. Section 
771(25) of the Act only defines the term subject merchandise in 
pertinent part as the ``class or kind of merchandise that is within the 
scope of an investigation. * * *'' However, neither the term ``class or 
kind'' nor the term ``scope'' is defined in the statute.
    It is well established that the Department has the ultimate 
authority under the statute to define the class or kind of merchandise 
subject to its

[[Page 26833]]

proceedings.\1\ Thus, the Department has the authority both to limit 
and to expand the class or kind alleged in the petition.\2\ This 
authority notwithstanding, it has generally been the policy of the 
Department to accept the class or kind of merchandise alleged in the 
petition absent some overarching reason to modify that class or 
kind.\3\ This policy stems from the fact that the domestic industry is 
in the best position to identify the imports that they compete against 
and believe to be unfairly traded.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 898 F.2d 1577, 
1582 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and Diversified Products Corp. v. United 
States, 572 F.Supp. 883, 887 (1983). See also Smith-Corona Group v. 
United States, 713 F.2d 1568, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 
465 U.S. 1022 (1984).
    \2\ See Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 700 F.Supp. 
538, 555 (1988), aff'd, 898 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and 
Torrington Co. v. United States, 745 F.Supp. 718, 721 n4 (CIT 1990).
    \3\ In many cases the Department has used the so-called 
``Diversified Products'' criteria in analyzing class or kind issues. 
See 19 CFR Sec. 351.225(k)(2). However, these criteria are not used 
to expand the class or kind defined in the petition, but rather to 
determine whether a particular product is within the class or kind 
as defined or, more rarely, to determine whether the scope as 
alleged actually covers several classes or kinds. See, e.g. Partial 
Recission of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations and Dismissal 
of Petitions; Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From Romania, Singapore, and Thailand, 
53 FR 39327 (October 6, 1988) (Department split one class or kind in 
to five classes or kinds); and Cyanuric Acid and Its Chlorinated 
Derivatives from Japan Used in the Swimming Pool Trade; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 49 FR 7424 (1984) 
(Department split one class or kind into three classes or kinds). In 
other words, absent some overarching reason to the contrary, the 
fact that application of the ``Diversified Products'' criteria 
reveals that a particular product which is excluded from the scope 
could be considered within the same class or kind will not normally 
result in including that product in the coverage of the 
investigation for reasons discussed above: to the extent the 
petitioners are not interested in seeking trade relief against a 
particular product, the Department should not require them to do so. 
There does not appear to be any such reason to depart from this 
approach in this case.
    \4\ See Torrington, 745 F.Supp. at 721. (``The petitioner's 
description of class or kind is awarded some deference inasmuch as 
the petitioner often will call Commerce's attention to an otherwise 
overlooked potential dumping problem.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, a petitioning industry often must draw a bright line 
between the imports it wants covered and those it does not. To the 
extent it can establish that the covered imports are dumped and the 
cause of material injury, it is entitled to relief under the statute, 
notwithstanding the fact that it may have excluded from the scope other 
products which may or may not also be the subject of injurious dumping. 
It is appropriate not to make imports the subject of unnecessary 
antidumping proceedings. It is also appropriate that the Department not 
force the petitioner to seek duties on products against its will.
    In the present case, the petitioners have drawn a legitimate line 
between those products they believe to be appropriately covered, and 
those they do not. First, the existence of a separate HTS number for 
the April 1-June 30 period (i.e. HTS 0806.10.40) supports a finding 
that such a period appropriately can form a class or kind of 
merchandise. The Department has often stated that its determination as 
to the appropriate coverage of an investigation is not determined by 
HTS categories. However, the fact that the period of April through June 
falls under a separate HTS category reflects the fact that imports 
during this season are recognized by industry and other U.S. government 
agencies as distinct from other imports. In both cases the petitioners 
have rationally identified those imports which directly compete with 
their product, and excluded from the investigation those imports which 
they are not concerned about. Imports from Chile and Mexico during the 
April 1 through July 30 period compete with spring grape production in 
the United States, which begins in May and continues through July.
    For all of these reasons we have determined that these cases can 
proceed on the basis of a class or kind defined in part by the April 1 
through June 30 period.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers 
or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the Department shall either 
poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of 
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-
81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this subtitle.'' Thus, the reference point from which the 
domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    The domestic like product described in the petitions is spring 
table grapes sold for fresh use, regardless of variety. Based upon our 
review of the petitioners' claims, we concur that there is a single 
domestic like product: spring table grapes sold for fresh consumption. 
For further discussion, see the May 9, 2001, from the case team to 
Richard Moreland and Joseph Spetrini memorandum entitled ``Domestic 
Like Product and Industry Support.''
    Concerning industry support, for both countries covered by the 
petitions, the petitioners claimed that they represent the majority of 
the spring table grapes industry, defined as growers of U.S. table 
grapes in the period April through June. We find that the spring table 
grapes industry consists of those producers who harvest grapes 
predominantly during this period (i.e., those producers in the 
Coachella Valley of California and western Arizona).

[[Page 26834]]

Consequently, we find that the petitioners established industry support 
by demonstrating that they account for over 25 percent of total 
production of the domestic like product (see Antidumping Investigations 
Initiation Checklist, dated May 9, 2001 (Initiation Checklist), thereby 
meeting the first requirement under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
    We note that in 2000 a small amount of production by the Coachella 
Valley and western Arizona producers actually occurred in July. 
However, even if we include all U.S. production data for July in our 
determination of industry support, we would find that the petitioners 
established industry support by demonstrating that they account for 
over 25 percent of total production of the domestic like product (see 
the May 9, 2001, memorandum from the team to Richard W. Moreland and 
Joseph Spetrini entitled ``Industry Support Calculations in the 
Antidumping Duty Petitions on Spring Table Grapes from Chile and 
Mexico'' (the Industry Support Memo). In making this determination, we 
observe that by including July the petitioners would represent less 
than 50 percent of the domestic production of the like product in the 
April through July period. For this reason, we have additionally 
examined industry support as required by section 732(c)(4)(D) of the 
Act considering the positions of each company with production in the 
April through July period which expressed an opinion on the petitions. 
We find that, based on this additional information, there is still 
sufficient support for the petition. Specifically, we find that the 
companies supporting the petitions represent over 50 percent of the 
production of companies that have expressed support or opposition to 
the petitions. Furthermore, because we have determined that several 
additional companies have taken neutral positions with respect to the 
petitions, we find that any additional potential opposition could not 
possibly represent over 50 percent of the industry. See the Industry 
Support Memo. Accordingly, we determine that these petitions are filed 
on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act.

Constructed Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The sources of data for the deductions 
and adjustments relating to U.S. price, home market price, third 
country price, and constructed value (CV) are also discussed in the 
Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our 
preliminary or final determinations, we may re-examine the information 
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Chile

Constructed Export Price

    The petitioners identified ten of the largest export trading 
companies which account for sixty percent by volume of spring table 
grape exports to the United States during the year 2000. The ten 
exporters are: David del Curto S.A., Dole Chile S.A., Exportadora Rio 
Blanco Ltda., Exportadora Agua Santa S.A., Exportadora Chiquita-Enza 
Chile Ltda., Del Monte Fresh Produce S.A., (formerly United Trading 
Company), Servicios de Exportaciones Fruiticolas Ltda., Sociedad Agro 
Comercial Verfrut Ltda., Exportadora Aconcagua Ltda., Exportadora 
Unifruitti Traders Ltda. The petitioners used information obtained 
through foreign market research to demonstrate that the prices 
negotiated by the U.S. importers/distributors of spring table grapes to 
their customers in the U.S. market on behalf of Chilean exporters are 
the prices that should be used to determine dumping margins for grapes 
exported from Chile. To the best of the petitioners' knowledge, the 
exporter is the first party in the chain of distribution that has 
knowledge of the ultimate destination of the merchandise. In this case, 
the exporters sell the grapes in the United States through affiliated 
or unaffiliated importers/distributors. Accordingly, it is appropriate 
to use constructed export price (CEP) based on the prices of the sales 
by the U.S. importers/distributors in the United States. However, the 
petitioners were unable to obtain these prices. For purposes of the 
petition, petitioners obtained through foreign market research the 
corresponding FOB Chile prices (i.e., the resulting price after the 
deduction of all relevant expenses from the prices of sales in the 
United States). These prices are based on data compiled by ODEPA, an 
official government agency of Chile. The average FOB Chile prices 
obtained through foreign market research are consistent with the 
average FOB values in the official U.S. import statistics. (See Exhibit 
B-13 of the petition.)

Normal Value

    With respect to normal value (NV), information reasonably available 
to the petitioners indicates the existence of a particular market 
situation which renders price comparisons between home market and U.S. 
prices inappropriate. The factors cited by the petitioners as evidence 
of a particular market situation in Chile with respect to spring table 
grapes are the same factors present in Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 
31411 (June 9, 1998): (1) The Chilean table grape industry is export-
oriented; (2) the home market is incidental to the Chilean industry; 
(3) the home market is comprised almost exclusively of grapes graded as 
other than export quality; (4) the home market sales are made at 
drastically reduced prices compared to the export quality merchandise; 
and (5) domestically-sold spring table grapes had perfunctory marketing 
and distribution. As a result, the petitioners obtained information 
through foreign market research for nine Chilean exporters with respect 
to sales to third country markets. The petitioners obtained information 
demonstrating that the Netherlands, Hong Kong/People's Republic of 
China, and Mexico are by far the principal third country export markets 
for Chilean spring table grapes. The petitioners relied on exporter-
specific data to determine the largest third country market by exporter 
and then based NV for that exporter on its sales to that market.
    In the course of this investigation, the Department will examine 
further the issue of particular market situation and the proper 
comparison market to be examined in this investigation.
    Based upon the comparison of CEP to NV, the estimated dumping 
margins range from 23.00 to 99.39 percent.

Mexico

Constructed Export Price

    According to the petitioners, U.S. sales of the subject merchandise 
should be considered CEP sales, as the first sales to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States are made by brokers/commissionaires in 
the United States on behalf of the Mexican producers.
    The petitioners based CEP on U.S. export price data from two 
Mexican growers' associations. According to the petitioners, these 
prices are packed, FOB shipping prices in Nogales, Arizona. To 
calculate CEP, the petitioners deducted a distributor's commission 
(i.e., distributor mark-up), cold storage and palletization costs, and 
movement expenses (i.e., foreign inland freight, U.S. border crossing 
fees, USDA inspection fees, and U.S. inland freight) from the price 
quotes. The information

[[Page 26835]]

for all of these adjustments except foreign inland freight, 
palletization and cold storage expenses were based on the actual 
documentation of U.S. sales transactions. The other information was 
obtained from the petitioners' foreign market research. The petitioners 
also made an adjustment for credit expenses based on the payment terms 
claimed to be typical for the industry and the average lending rate in 
the United States during the second quarter of 2000, as published in 
International Financial Statistics.

Normal Value

    The petitioners based NV on CV because they claimed that all of the 
prices that they obtained in the home market were made below the fully 
absorbed cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section 773(b) 
of the Act. As a consequence, they alleged that there are reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the subject merchandise in 
the home market were made at below-cost prices and they requested that 
the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of cost of 
manufacture (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, and packing expenses. The petitioners calculated COM, SG&A 
expenses, and packing expenses for three varieties of grapes based on 
costs contained in foreign market research studies for grapes produced 
in Mexico. We adjusted the petitioners' calculations of the COPs by 
excluding the amounts for selling expenses, because these expenses were 
deducted, in part, from the home market sales prices.
    With respect to home market price, the petitioners obtained Mexican 
home market daily wholesale prices through the Mexican National Market 
Information System. The petitioners made a deduction from home market 
price for foreign inland freight obtained from foreign market research. 
Additionally, the petitioners deducted distributor markups using the 
percentage applied to CEP sales as they were unable to obtain 
comparable Mexican price information.
    The petitioners claimed that their foreign market research showed 
that there are no other fees, such as inspection or cold storage 
expenses, incurred on home market sales. However, based on the 
description of the harvesting and distribution system, we find it 
unlikely that grapes in the home market underwent no cold storage at 
all. For purposes of the initiation, we included an adjustment for cold 
storage expenses to the net home market price based on the same 
information applied to CEP.
    Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like products 
in the home market to the calculated COPs of those products, we find 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a 
country-wide cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners based NV on CV. The petitioners calculated CVs for three 
varieties of grapes using the same COM, SG&A and packing expense 
figures used to compute the home market costs. The petitioners, using a 
conservative approach, did not include an amount for profit in their 
calculation of CV as provided by section 773(e)(2) of the Act. We 
adjusted the petitioners' calculations of CV by excluding the amounts 
of selling expenses the petitioners included in SG&A expenses.
    The petitioners claimed that their foreign market research showed 
that there are generally no credit expenses incurred on home market 
sales. However, our review of the petition documentation indicates that 
home market credit expense may be incurred on some sales. Therefore, 
for purposes of the initiation, we included an adjustment to CV for 
Mexican credit expenses using the payment terms data applied to the CEP 
sales and the Mexican interest rate published in International 
Financial Statistics.
    Based upon the comparison of CEP to CV, the revised calculated 
estimated dumping margins range from 0 to114.77 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of spring table grapes from Chile and Mexico are 
being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise. The petitioners contend that the industry's 
injured condition is evident in the declining trends in net operating 
income, net sales volume and value, profit to sales ratios, and 
capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and causation are 
supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost 
sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and have 
determined that these allegations are properly supported by accurate 
and adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation (see Initiation Checklist).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on spring table grapes, 
we have found that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the 
Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of spring table grapes from Chile and Mexico 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value. Unless this deadline is extended, we will make our 
preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of 
this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of each petition has been provided to the 
representatives of the governments of Chile and Mexico. We will attempt 
to provide a copy of the public version of each petition to each 
exporter named in the petition, as appropriate.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine, no later than June 4, 2001, whether there 
is a reasonable indication that imports of spring table grapes from 
Chile and Mexico are causing material injury, or threatening to cause 
material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for 
any country will result in the investigations being terminated with 
respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed 
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: May 9, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-12212 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P