[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44596-44600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21469]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty new shipper 
review, preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review, 
and partial rescission of administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting a new shipper review and an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 
from the People's Republic of China. The period of review for the new 
shipper review, which concerns one new shipper, is June 1, 2000, 
through November 30, 2000. The period of review for the administrative 
review is November 1, 1999, through October 31, 2000. This review 
covers six manufacturers/exporters. At the request of the petitioner 
and the agreement of the new shipper, the two reviews have been aligned 
and are being performed simultaneously. With respect to the new shipper 
review, we find that the company has failed to provide the identity of 
garlic producers and other information key to an analysis of the 
factors of production and, therefore, a margin determination. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine in the new shipper review that 
the respondent has not acted to the best of its ability and the usage 
of facts otherwise available for margin-calculation purposes is 
warranted. With respect to the administrative review, the requests for 
review have been withdrawn for two respondent-companies. We are 
therefore rescinding the review with respect to these companies. For 
the remaining four respondent-companies, we also have found that the 
respondents have not acted to the best of their ability in responding 
to our questionnaires. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined to 
use facts otherwise available for the determination of a margin.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument: (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 24, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Richard Rimlinger, 
Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement 3, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-3477 or (202) 482-4477, respectively, for 
information concerning the new shipper review. For information 
concerning the administrative review, please contact Edythe Artman or 
Mark Ross at the same address; telephone (202) 482-3931 or (202) 482-
4794, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    On November 8, 2000, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 65 FR 
66965 (Nov. 8, 2000). On November 29, 2000, a legal representative 
submitted a request for a new shipper review in accordance with section 
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214 (c) of the Department's 
regulations on behalf of Feidong Import and Export Company Ltd. 
(Feidong). On December 8, 2000, the representative submitted an amended 
request, in which Clipper Manufacturing Ltd. (Clipper) was identified 
as the new shipper. Because of circumstances concerning the request for 
review, the Department accepted the amendment as a timely submission. 
See ``Memorandum to the File'' regarding request for clarification 
concerning new shipper request (December 22, 2000). (All cited 
memoranda to the file and decision memoranda are on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099.) We published a 
notice of initiation of new shipper review for Clipper on January 3, 
2001. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Initiation 
of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 66 FR 350 (January 3, 2001).
    On November 27, 2000, Jinan Import and Export Co. (Jinan) requested 
an administrative review of exports of its merchandise to the United 
States. On November 30, 2000, Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd., and Taian 
Fook Huat Tong Kee Foods Co., Ltd. (collectively FHTK), requested a 
review of their exports to the United States. On the same day, the 
petitioner, the Fresh Garlic Producers Association and its individual 
members, requested reviews of the following producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise: FHTK; Rizhao Hanxi Fisheries and Comprehensive 
Development Co., Ltd. (Rizhao); Zhejiang Materials Industry (Zhejiang); 
Wo Hing (H.K.) Trading Co. (Wo Hing); Feidong; and an unidentified 
producer or exporter responsible for a shipment of fresh garlic 
imported by Good Time Produce, Inc. The Department determined that, in 
accordance with its past practice, it would not initiate a review of 
the latter respondent since the petitioner was unable to identify it by 
name. See ``Memorandum to the File'' regarding deficient request for 
administrative review (December 29, 2000). We published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review on December 28, 2000. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 65 FR 82322 (December 28, 2000).
    On January 8, 2001, we issued a questionnaire to Clipper, each 
respondent in the administrative review, the Embassy of the PRC, the 
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), and the 
China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Foodstuffs, Native 
Produce, and Animal By-Products (China Chamber of Commerce). The 
questionnaire for Zhejiang was sent in care of MOFTEC since we were 
unable to obtain an address or phone number for that company. We did 
not receive a response to the questionnaire from the Embassy of the 
PRC, MOFTEC, or the China Chamber of Commerce.
    On February 9, 2001, the petitioner submitted a request for 
alignment of the new shipper and administrative reviews. Clipper 
responded to the

[[Page 44597]]

Department that it did not object to the petitioner's request. See 
``Memorandum to the File'' regarding alignment of new shipper and 
administrative reviews (February 19, 2001). Therefore, we are 
conducting the two reviews simultaneously.

Scope of the Order

    The products subject to the antidumping duty order are all grades 
of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not 
peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in 
water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the 
addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences 
between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.
    The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) garlic 
that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not 
exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed.
    The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and 
for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 
0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. In order to 
be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the 
HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and 
primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to the Customs Service to that effect.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On February 13, 2001, we received a letter from Jinan withdrawing 
its request for review. On the same day, we received a letter from 
Feidong in which it stated that it had made no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). 
Prior to confirmation of this statement with the U.S. Customs Service, 
the petitioner sent us a letter in which it withdrew its request for 
review with respect to Feidong on March 5, 2001. Because the requests 
were withdrawn in a timely manner, we are rescinding the review with 
respect to Jinan and Feidong, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Separate Rates

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 1999), 
and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 
(December 31, 1998)) and in prior segments of this proceeding. A 
designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the 
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to 
government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty deposit rate.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate, 
unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with 
respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently 
independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the 
Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the 
test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
    Because Rizhao, Zhejiang, and Wo Hing did not provide responses to 
our request for information regarding separate rates, we preliminarily 
determine that these respondent-companies do not merit separate rates. 
See, e.g., Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads from the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 57390 (November 6, 1996). Consequently, 
consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, we find 
that, because these companies do not qualify for separate rates, they 
are deemed to be covered by the PRC-entity rate.
    Clipper's submissions establish that it is a Hong Kong company. 
Because Hong Kong companies are treated as market-economy companies 
(see Application of U.S. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws to 
Hong Kong, 62 FR 42965 (August 11, 1997)), we determine that no 
separate-rate analysis is required for Clipper. Consequently, Clipper 
qualifies for a company-specific rate.
    FHTK's submissions establish that Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Foods 
Co., Ltd., is a PRC-company that is wholly-owned by Fook Huat Tong Kee 
Pte., Ltd., a Singaporean company. Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd., is 
wholly-owned by a Singaporean holding company that is publicly-traded. 
Because there is no PRC ownership of Taian Fook Huat Tong Kee Foods 
Co., Ltd., or Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd., we determine that no 
separate-rate analysis is required for these companies because they are 
beyond the jurisdiction of the PRC government. See Final Determinations 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters from the 
People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22359, 22361 (May 5, 1995); Bicycles 
from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 
1996). Consequently, FHTK qualifies for a company-specific rate.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
or any other person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department 
may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the 
original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of 
the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet

[[Page 44598]]

all the applicable requirements established by the administering 
authority'' if the information is timely, can be verified, and is not 
so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted 
to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of 
these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use 
the information, if it can do so without undue difficulty.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``an 
affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997).
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act. However, section 776(c) provides that, when 
the Department relies on secondary information rather than on 
information obtained in the course of a review, the Department shall, 
to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA states 
that the independent sources may include published price lists, 
official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained 
from interested parties during the particular investigation or review. 
See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 6, 1996) (TRBs), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, 
if there are no independent sources from which the Department can 
derive calculated dumping margins, then, unlike other types of 
information such as input costs or selling expenses, the only source 
for margins is previous administrative determinations.

A. New Shipper Review

    Clipper submitted a response to section A of the questionnaire on 
February 12, 2001, and a response to sections C and D on February 28, 
2001. Because Clipper failed to provide the Department with sufficient 
production and sales data in response to its questionnaire, the 
Department, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, sent Clipper a more 
specific supplemental questionnaire requesting the missing information. 
On May 17, 2001, Clipper sent its response to the Department. Clipper 
still failed to provide sufficient production and sales data in its 
supplemental response. Thus, the Department sent another supplemental 
questionnaire to Clipper on July 16, 2001. It submitted a response to 
this supplemental questionnaire on July 20, 2001. Therefore, we have 
provided the company with the opportunity to remedy or explain the 
deficiencies in its responses by responding to two supplemental 
questionnaires. Having reviewed the responses, we find that the 
supplemental questionnaire responses are incomplete and there is 
inconsistent information on the record. In response to our February 27, 
2001, questionnaire, Clipper stated in an exhibit that the raw garlic 
was provided by ``local garlic growers.'' After further inquiry by the 
Department, Clipper again stated that ``the raw garlic was provided by 
local garlic growers'' in its May supplemental response but failed to 
provide the source of the garlic production. Finally, after our third 
inquiry in our July supplemental questionnaire, Clipper indicated yet 
again that raw garlic came from ``local growers,'' but it did not 
provide us with any source-specific information. In addition, at times 
in its responses, Clipper indicated that there may be one garlic grower 
or several garlic growers. Therefore, the Department knows nothing 
about Clipper's sources of garlic, not even the number of garlic 
growers.
    The factors of production for growing garlic are critical to the 
accurate calculation of normal value. This is because information 
pertaining to garlic production in this case is key to a dumping 
analysis of Clipper's exports to the United States. See section 
773(c)(1) of the Act. Further, because the information was both 
incomplete and unverifiable, the Department could not use the 
information actually provided by Clipper, pursuant to section 782(e) of 
the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we find 
it appropriate to resort to the use the facts otherwise available in 
our preliminary results of review. For a detailed analysis of our 
findings, see the ``Memorandum from Hermes Pinilla to Laurie Parkhill'' 
regarding the use of facts otherwise available and the corroboration of 
secondary information (August 14, 2001) (Facts-Available Memorandum I).
    Furthermore, we find that Clipper could have complied with our 
requests for data but did not do so. Clipper gave every indication that 
it would comply with our requests for information and seemed to support 
this presumption by providing us with some factors-of-production 
information in response to a second supplemental questionnaire, albeit 
with data from unrevealed sources. Indeed, all of Clipper's 
representations suggest that Clipper itself believed it could comply 
with the requests for information. Section 776(b) of the Act requires a 
respondent to cooperate ``to the best of its ability'' in response to 
our requests for information during a review. We determine that Clipper 
did not act to the best of its ability in this case. With no source 
information pertaining to key factors-of-production information, the 
Department has no basis on which to conclude that Clipper's submissions 
are reliable and form a reasonable basis for a margin calculation. 
Therefore, because Clipper's responses are so incomplete that they 
could not provide a verifiable basis for determining a margin 
calculation, we find that Clipper did not act ``to the best of its 
ability,'' as required by the Act. Therefore, we find it appropriate, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use an adverse inference in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Facts-Available 
Memorandum I.
    The only rate that has ever been calculated in this proceeding is 
376.67 percent, a rate that is currently the PRC-wide rate and that was 
calculated based on information contained in the petition. As detailed 
in the Facts-Available Memorandum I, the information contained in the 
petition was challenged during the less-than-fair-value investigation 
and that challenge was rejected by the Department. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Garlic from the 
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 49058, 49059 (September 26, 1994). 
The

[[Page 44599]]

rate was corroborated for the preliminary results of the first 
administrative review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 68229, 68230 (December 27, 1996). We 
corroborated the information in subsequent reviews to the extent that 
we noted the history of corroboration and found that we had not 
received any information that warranted revisiting the issue. See Fresh 
Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 48464 (Aug. 8, 2000). Similarly, no 
information has been presented in the current review that calls into 
question the reliability or the relevance of the information contained 
in the petition. We thus find that the information is reliable and 
relevant.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department stated in TRBs that it will ``consider information 
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that 
would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the 
selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the 
Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate 
margin.'' See TRBs at 61 FR 57392. See also Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin in 
the case as best information available because the margin was based on 
another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
extremely high margin). There is no information on the record that the 
application of this rate would be inappropriate in the new shipper 
review or that the margin is not relevant; therefore for Clipper, we 
have applied, as adverse facts available, the 376.67 percent margin 
from a prior administrative review of this order and have satisfied the 
corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of the Act. See 
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18439, 18441 (Apr. 9, 
2001) (employing a petition rate used as adverse facts available in a 
previous segment as the adverse facts available in the current review). 
See Facts-Available Memorandum I.

B. Administrative Review

    Rizhao, Zhejiang, and Wo Hing did not respond to our questionnaire. 
Consequently, we find it appropriate, under subsection 776(a)(2) of the 
Act, to use the facts otherwise available as the basis for our 
preliminary results of review for these three companies. For a detailed 
discussion of our determination, see the ``Memorandum from Edythe 
Artman to Laurie Parkhill'' regarding the use of facts otherwise 
available and the corroboration of secondary information (August 14, 
2001) (Facts-Available Memorandum II).
    As discussed in the ``Separate Rates'' section above, Rizhao, 
Zhejiang, and Wo Hing did not provide responses to our request for 
information regarding separate rates and, consequently, we 
preliminarily determine that these respondent-companies do not merit 
separate rates. See, e.g., Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush 
Heads from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 57390 (November 6, 1996). 
We therefore find that, because these companies do not qualify for 
separate rates, they are deemed to be covered by the PRC-entity rate.
    We find that, by not responding to our questionnaire, Rizhao, 
Zhejiang, and Wo Hing each failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of their ability to comply with a request for information. 
Therefore, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse 
to the interests of each of these companies in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies 
will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than 
had they cooperated fully. See Facts-Available Memorandum II.
    As discussed above, we find that the secondary information upon 
which the rate of 376.67 percent was based had been corroborated 
previously, pursuant to subsection 776(c) of the Act, and continues to 
have probative value. See Facts-Available Memorandum II. Therefore, we 
conclude that the margin of 376.67 percent should be used as the facts 
otherwise available for the preliminary results of review for Rizhao, 
Zhejiang, and Wo Hing.
    FHTK submitted a response to section A of our questionnaire on 
February 21, 2001, and a response to sections C and D on February 28, 
2001. Because FHTK failed to provide the Department with sufficient 
production and sales data in response to its questionnaires, the 
Department, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, sent FHTK a more 
specific supplemental questionnaire requesting the missing information. 
On May 15, 2001, FHTK sent its response to the Department. A great deal 
of necessary information was still not reported by FHTK. In fact, 
because the information was both incomplete and unverifiable, the 
Department could not use the information actually provided by FHTK, 
pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act.
    We find that FHTK did not respond to these questionnaires to the 
best of its ability. As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
permits the Department to apply facts otherwise available if a 
respondent has not provided sufficient responses to the Department's 
questionnaires. Section 776(b) of the Act allows the Department to draw 
an adverse inference if it determines that a party has not responded to 
the best of its ability. In this matter, therefore, we find that an 
adverse inference is warranted.
    We find that FHTK's responses are so deficient as to preclude their 
use in the calculation of a dumping margin. FHTK failed to provide 
certain information on affiliation and FHTK's production and sales 
processes. Moreover, FHTK failed to submit financial statements for the 
two most recently completed fiscal years, as well as information on 
certain selling expenses. Finally, FHTK did not adequately explain 
certain factor data related to energy usage, labor, and packing 
materials. Without this information, we are unable to do a complete 
factors-of-production analysis. The deficiences in the responses are so 
significant and pervasive that we are neither able to calculate a 
dumping margin for FHTK based on its own data nor able to use ``gap 
fillers'' for the same reason. Therefore, we conclude that, pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the use of total facts available is 
appropriate for our preliminary results of review for FHTK. We further 
find that the information in FHTK's responses is not sufficient for 
purposes of conducting a verification and, accordingly, we will not 
conduct a verification in this administrative review. See Facts-
Available Memorandum II.
    In addition, we find that, because the information provided by FHTK 
was incomplete or lacking in detail for purposes of conducting a 
verification or calculating a margin, FHTK did not cooperate to the 
best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. 
Furthemore, given FHTK's signficant resources and previous 
participation in antidumping proceedings, we find, at the least, that 
FHTK could have complied with our requests for information, but it did 
not do so. Accordingly, we find it appropriate to use an adverse 
inference in selecting from the facts otherwise available.
    As discussed above, we find that the secondary information upon 
which the

[[Page 44600]]

rate of 376.67 percent was based has been corroborated previously, 
pursuant to subsection 776(c) of the Act, and continues to have 
probative value. Thus, we have preliminarily determined to apply 376.67 
percent to the exports of subject merchandise by FHTK during the POR as 
the facts otherwise available. See Facts-Available Memorandum II.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    As a result of our new shipper review, we preliminarily determine 
that a margin of 376.67 percent exists for all of Clipper's exports of 
the subject merchandise for the period June 1, 2000, through November 
30, 2000. As a result of our administrative review, we preliminarily 
determine that a margin of 376.67 percent exists for FHTK and, as a 
PRC-entity rate, for all other producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise for the period November 1, 1999, through October 31, 2000.
    Interested parties may also submit written arguments in case briefs 
on these preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit 
for filing case briefs. 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. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 
on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on 
argument raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary 
specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held three days 
after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish the final results of these reviews, 
including its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, 
not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    Upon completion of the final results in these reviews, the 
Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    Furthermore, upon publication of the final results of the reviews, 
the following deposit rates will be effective with respect to all 
shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates for those firms 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for all other PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the 
PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent; and (3) for non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC not covered by this review, the less-
than-fair-value investigation, or a previous review, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during the review periods. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing these determinations and notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 17, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-21469 Filed 8-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P