[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52744-52745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-813]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Recission of Administrative Review in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit 
From Thailand

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

SUMMARY: On April 10, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand. 
This review covers ten producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. 
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. 
Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the 
``Final Results of Review'' section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or Charles Riggle, Office 
5, Group II, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0371 and (202) 482-0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department regulations are references 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Background

    This review covers the following producers/exporters of merchandise 
subject to the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from 
Thailand: Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita), Kuiburi Fruit 
Canning Company Limited (KFC), Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee); 
Siam Food Products Public Co. Ltd. (SFP), The Thai Pineapple Public 
Co., Ltd. (TIPCO), Thai Pineapple Canning Industry (TPC), and Dole Food 
Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole Thailand, Ltd. 
(collectively, Dole); and Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co., Ltd. (SIFCO).
    On September 12, 2000 and September 15, 2000 respectively, in 
response to the Department's questionnaire, Prachuab Fruit Canning 
Company (Praft) and Siam Agro Industry Pineapple and Others Co., Ltd. 
(SAICO) stated that they made no shipments to the United States of the 
subject merchandise during the POR.
    On April 10, 2001, the Department published the preliminary results 
of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 66 FR 
18596 (Preliminary Results). Consistent with the preliminary results, 
we are rescinding the review with respect to Praft and SAICO. On May 
14-18 we verified information provided by SIFCO. On July 9 and 16, 
2001, we received case briefs and/or rebuttal briefs, respectively, 
from the petitioners,\1\ Dole, KFC, Malee, SIFCO, TIPCO and Vita. On 
July 23, 2001 a public hearing was held.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is CPF. CPF is defined as 
pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, 
including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that 
is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar 
syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 
2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-
based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar 
(i.e., juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and for customs purposes, our written description of the 
scope is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' 
(Decision Memorandum) from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 9, 2001, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice.
    A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to 
this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We calculated export price and normal value based on the same 
methodology used in the preliminary results. We corrected clerical 
errors with respect to Dole, KFC, SIFCO and Vita.

Cost of Production

    We calculated the cost of production (COP) for the merchandise 
based on the same methodology used in the preliminary results, with the 
exception of SIFCO. For SIFCO, we calculated a cost for juice used as 
packing medium and corrected clerical input errors in its COP database 
that we found at verification.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Food Products Company Ltd. (SFP)......................         0.18
Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole).............................         0.49
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd. (TIPCO)............         4.74
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd. (KFC).......................         1.15
Thai Pineapple Canning Industry (TPC)......................         2.33
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd. (SIFCO).................         2.76
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co. Ltd. (Vita)...................         2.77

[[Page 52745]]

 
Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee).....................        10.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: October 9, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Issues Covered in Decision Memorandum

I. Issues Specific to Dole
    Comment 1: Additional U.S. Sales Presented at Verification
    Comment 2: Calculation of General and Administrative Expense 
(G&A) and Financial Expense Ratios
    Comment 3: Imputed Credit Expenses
    Comment 4: Reseller's Profit
    Comment 5: Fruit Cost Allocation
    Comment 6: Correction of Errors in Database
    Comment 7: Early Payment Discounts
    Comment 8: Clerical Error Allegation
II. Issue Specific to KFC
    Comment 9: Clerical Error Allegation
III. Issues Specific to Malee
    Comment 10: Treatment of Negative Margins
    Comment 11: Use of Entry Date to Establish the Universe of Sales 
Examined
IV. Issues Specific to SIFCO
    Comment 12: Date of Sale: Contract Date vs. Invoice Date
    Comment 13: Additional Sales Found at Verification and Use of 
Facts Available
    Comment 14: Allocation of Separate Natural Juice Packing Medium 
Costs
    Comment 15: Correction of Errors in Database
V. Issues Specific to TIPCO
    Comment 16: Export Price (EP) vs. Constructed Export Price (CEP)
    Comment 17: Offset to G&A
    Comment 18: Calculation of Interest Expense Ratio
VI. Issue Specific to Vita
    Comment 19: Clerical Error Allegation

[FR Doc. 01-26124 Filed 10-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P