[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10366-10371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5474]



[[Page 10366]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-802]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Indonesia: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner,\1\ the Department 
of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia. The 
respondents are three manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise: PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa,\2\ PT Indo 
Evergreen Agro Business Corp., and PT Zeta Agro Corporation. The period 
of review is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom 
Trade which includes the American Mushroom Institute and the 
following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Nottingham, PA; 
Modern Mushrooms Farms, Inc., Toughkernamon, PA; Monterrey 
Mushrooms, Inc., Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp., 
Temple, PA; Mushrooms Canning Company, Kennett Square, PA; Southwood 
Farms, Hockessin, DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; United 
Canning Corp., North Lima, OH.
    \2\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), PT Dieng Djaya and PT 
Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa were determined to be affiliated companies 
in the original less-than-fair-value investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value by PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries of the subject merchandise during the 
period of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophie E. Castro or Rebecca Trainor, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration-Room B-099, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
: (202) 482-0588 or (202) 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 U.S. Department of Commerce's 
(the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Background

    On December 31, 1998, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (63 FR 72268), the final affirmative antidumping duty 
determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) on certain 
preserved mushrooms from Indonesia. We published an antidumping duty 
order on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8310).
    On February 14, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period February 1, 2000, 
through January 31, 2001 (66 FR 10269). On February 28, 2001, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we received a timely request from 
the petitioner that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
exports to the United States by PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi 
Perkasa (Dieng/Surya), PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. (Indo 
Evergreen), and PT Zeta Agro Corporation (Zeta). We published a notice 
of initiation of the review on March 22, 2001 (66 FR 16037).
    On March 30, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen, and Zeta. We issued 
supplemental questionnaires in November 2001. In June 2001 and January 
2002, we received timely responses to the Department's original and 
supplemental questionnaires, respectively.
    On July 19, 2001, due to the reasons set forth in the Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 37640 (July 19, 2001), 
we extended the due date for the preliminary results. In accordance 
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we extended the due date for the 
preliminary results by the maximum 120 days allowable or until February 
28, 2002.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus 
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Preserved mushrooms'' refer to 
mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, 
and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and 
heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in 
a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, 
butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, 
sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of 
this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in 
a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further 
processing.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All 
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and 
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched 
mushrooms''; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) 
``marinated,'' ``acidified'' or ``pickled  mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under 
subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 
2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States\3\ (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of this order dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As of January 1, 2002, the HTS codes are as follows: 
2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, 0711.51.0000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales to the United States of certain 
preserved mushrooms by Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen and Zeta were made 
at less than normal value, we compared export price to the normal 
value, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export 
prices of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average normal 
value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the 
ordinary course of trade at prices above the cost of production (COP), 
as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

[[Page 10367]]

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Dieng/Surya, Indo Evergreen and Zeta, covered by 
the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, sold by 
the respondents in the home or third country markets during the period 
of review (POR), to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 
U.S. sales to sales made in the home or third country markets within 
the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months 
prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home or third country 
markets made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales 
of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of 
trade in the home or third country markets to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the product.
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in 
the following order: preservation method, container type, mushroom 
style, weight, grade, container solution and label type. See ``Normal 
Value'' section below for further discussion.

Export Price

    For all three respondents we used export price calculation 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly by the producer/exporter in 
Indonesia to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
prior to importation and constructed export price (CEP) treatment was 
not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated export price based on the packed FOB seaport prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign 
inland insurance, and brokerage and handling, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
normal value, we compared each of the respondents' volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the 
Act.
    Evergreen and Zeta's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we 
determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating 
normal value for both Evergreen and Zeta, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
    Dieng/Surya reported that its aggregate volume of home market sales 
was less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise. However, sales to one of its third country markets 
were above the five percent threshold and we attempted to use Dieng/
Surya's third country market sales, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of 
the Act. As discussed below in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' 
section of this notice, we were ultimately unable to use Dieng/Surya's 
third country sales to calculate normal value. As a result, we used the 
CV of the product as the basis for calculating normal value for Dieng/
Surya, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Arm's-Length Sales

    Indo Evergreen and Zeta each reported sales of the foreign like 
product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to 
affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we 
compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, 
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and 
packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was on average 99.5 
percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined 
that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Antidumping Duties; Contervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27355 (May 19, 1997) (preamble to the Department's regulations). 
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403(c), we excluded from our analysis those 
sales where the price to the affiliated parties was less than 99.5 
percent of the price to the unaffiliated parties.

Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate normal value based on sales 
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or CEP. Sales are 
made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages 
(or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial 
differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, 
condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of 
marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South 
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Cut-to-Length Plate 
from South Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison sales 
were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, 
we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain 
of distribution''), including selling functions, class of customer 
(``customer category''), and the level of selling expenses for each 
type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for export price and comparison market sales (i.e., 
normal value based on either home market or third country prices\4\), 
we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 
we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after 
the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 
See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where normal value is based on constructed value, we 
determine the normal value LOT based on the LOT of the sale from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses 
and profit for constructed value, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 
Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the 
comparison market. In comparing export price or CEP sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if a normal value LOT is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining 
whether the difference in LOTs between normal value and CEP affected 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Cut-to-Length Plate from South Africa, 62 
FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We obtained information from Indo Evergreen, Zeta and Dieng/Surya 
regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home 
market (for Indo Evergreen and Zeta) and third country market (for 
Dieng/Surya) and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by Indo Evergreen, Zeta and Dieng/Surya for

[[Page 10368]]

each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are 
summarized below.
    Indo Evergreen: All of Indo Evergreen's sales in the home market 
are through distributors who resell the merchandise to wholesalers for 
distribution, with the exception of a small amount of sales to its 
employees for consumption. We examined those two channels of 
distribution and the selling activities associated with home market 
sales through these channels of distribution, and determined that there 
was little difference in the relevant selling functions provided by 
Indo Evergreen. Specifically, Indo Evergreen does not provide inventory 
maintenance, after sale services, technical advise, advertising, or 
sales support for any of its home market customers. Indo Evergreen does 
incur some sales activity related to pre-delivery inspection. Indo 
Evergreen stated that these services are provided to all home-market 
customers regardless of the channels of distribution or customer 
categories. Because Indo Evergreen has the same selling functions for 
both channels of distribution (i.e., pre-delivery inspections), we find 
that both channels of distribution constitute one LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Indo Evergreen made only export price sales 
through two channels of distribution: (1) Through trading companies, 
and (2) through distributors who resold the merchandise to wholesalers 
for distribution either to supermarket chains or food service 
distributors. Similar to the home market LOT, Indo Evergreen does not 
provide inventory maintenance, after sale services, technical advise, 
advertising, or sales support in selling to its U.S. customers. In 
addition, Indo Evergreen does incur some sales activity related to pre-
delivery inspection. Indo Evergreen stated that these services are 
provided equally to all customers regardless of the channels of 
distribution or customer categories. Accordingly, there is only one LOT 
for U.S. sales.
    We compared the export price LOT to the home market LOT and 
concluded that the selling functions performed for home market 
customers are the same as those performed for U.S. customers (i.e., 
pre-delivery inspection). Accordingly, we consider the export price and 
home market LOTs to be the same. Consequently, we are comparing export 
price sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market.
    Zeta: Zeta reported sales in the home market through two channels 
of distribution: (1) Unaffiliated distributors, and (2) unaffiliated 
end-users. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling 
activities associated with home market sales through these channels of 
distribution, and determined that there was little difference in the 
relevant selling functions provided by Zeta. Specifically, Zeta 
provided only delivery arrangements for distributors and trading 
companies. Zeta does not maintain inventory or provide technical 
advice, warranty service or advertising for home market sales. Zeta did 
not indicate that there are any differences with respect to freight and 
delivery services between these channels of distribution or customer 
categories. Therefore, we find that the home market channels of 
distribution do not differ significantly from each other with respect 
to selling activities and, therefore, constitute one LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Zeta made only export price sales through one 
channel of distribution: sales to distributors shipped directly to the 
United States. Zeta incurred freight costs in delivering the product to 
the port. Zeta provided no technical advice or warranty services in the 
U.S. market, nor did it provide inventory maintenance, advertising, or 
sales support in selling to its U.S. customers. Accordingly, there is 
only one LOT for U.S. sales.
    We compared the export price LOT to the home market LOT and 
concluded that the selling functions performed for home market 
customers are the same as those performed for U.S. customers (i.e., 
freight/delivery services). Accordingly, we consider the export price 
and home market LOTs to be the same. Consequently, we are comparing 
export price sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market.
    Dieng/Surya: As stated above, where normal value is based on CV, we 
determine the normal value LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which 
we derive SG&A and profit for CV, where possible. In the case of Dieng/
Surya, because we are basing normal value on CV and using the SG&A 
expenses of Dieng/Surya in the calculation of CV, we conducted our LOT 
analysis in part based on the information provided by Dieng/Surya 
concerning its third country and U.S. marketing stages, including 
selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. In 
addition, because we are basing Dieng/Surya's profit for CV calculation 
purposes on the experience of the other two respondents in this review 
(see ``Calculation of Constructed Value'' section below), we also 
conducted our LOT analysis in part based on the information provided by 
the other two respondents.
    Dieng/Surya sold the foreign like product directly to trading 
companies in the third country. We examined the chain of distribution 
and the selling activities associated with third country sales through 
this channel of distribution, and determined that there was little 
difference in the relevant selling functions provided by Dieng/Surya to 
its third country customers. Specifically, Dieng/Surya provided only 
delivery services to these customers. Dieng/Surya does not maintain 
inventory or provide technical advice, warranty service or advertising 
for its third country sales. Therefore, we find that all of Dieng/
Surya's third country sales were made at the same LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Dieng/Surya made only export price sales 
through an affiliated company located in the Netherlands, which in 
turns sold to three different customers in the United States: 1) 
distributors, 2) wholesalers and 3) trading companies. For its U.S. 
sales, Dieng/Surya incurs freight costs in delivering the product to 
the port. Dieng/Surya provided no technical advice or warranty services 
in the U.S. market, nor did it provide inventory maintenance, 
advertising, or sales support in selling to its U.S. customers. 
Accordingly, we find that there is only one LOT for U.S. sales.
    We compared the export price LOT to the third country LOT and 
concluded that the selling functions performed for third country market 
customers are the same as those performed for U.S. customers (i.e., 
freight/delivery services). Accordingly, we consider the export price 
and third country market LOTs to be the same. Consequently, no LOT 
adjustment to normal value (i.e., CV) is warranted based on a 
comparison of Dieng/Surya's third country and U.S. marketing stages.
    Furthermore, as discussed above, we found the home market and 
export price LOTs to be the same for the other two respondents in this 
review, the data of which were used to derive Dieng/Surya's profit 
rate. Consequently, no LOT adjustment to normal value is warranted on 
this basis either.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales that failed the cost test for Dieng/
Surya, Indo Evergreen and Zeta in the last completed segment of the 
proceeding (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Indonesia: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 36754 (July 
13, 2001)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the 
respondents' sales of the foreign like product under consideration for 
the determination of

[[Page 10369]]

normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the COP, 
as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of 
home market sales made by Indo Evergreen and Zeta, and third country 
sales made by Dieng/Surya.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Dieng/Surya's, Indo Evergreen's and Zeta's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for SG&A, interest expenses, and the cost of all expenses incidental to 
placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for 
shipment. We relied on the home (for Indo Evergreen and Zeta) and third 
country (for Dieng/Surya) market sales, and COP information the 
respondents provided in their questionnaire responses, except for the 
following adjustments:
    For Indo Evergreen, we adjusted the general and administrative 
(G&A) expense rate by including Indo Evergreen's foreign exchange 
losses on accounts payable. For Zeta, we adjusted the reported 
production quantities by deducting waste production quantities. We also 
reclassified foreign exchange gains and losses to G&A expense. In 
addition, we decreased Zeta's claimed offset to material costs by 
excluding scrap revenue attributable to non-subject merchandise sales. 
For further details, see Preliminary Calculation Memorandum from Sophie 
Castro, Financial Analyst, to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Program 
Manager, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, 
dated February 28, 2002, for Zeta and Indo Evergreen, respectively.

B. Test of Home and Third Country Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average, per-unit COP figures for the POR 
to home (for Indo Evergreen and Zeta) and third country (for Dieng/
Surya) market sales of the foreign like product, as required by section 
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made 
at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home 
market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether: (1) 
Within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP, consisting of the COM, G&A, and 
interest, to the home market or third country prices, less any 
applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts and direct and indirect 
selling expenses. We adjusted Zeta's reported home market indirect 
selling expenses to exclude certain misclassified expenses. For further 
details, see Zeta's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

3. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where twenty percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made 
at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act).
    For Dieng/Surya, our cost test indicated that all third country 
sales made by Dieng/Surya, over an extended period of time, were at 
prices below COP and would not permit full recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales and based normal value on 
CV.
    The results of our cost tests for Indo Evergreen and Zeta indicated 
for certain home market products that less than twenty percent of the 
sales of the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all 
sales of these models in our analysis and used them as the basis for 
determining normal value.
    Our cost tests also indicated, for both Indo Evergreen and Zeta, 
that for certain other home market products more than twenty percent of 
home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices 
below COP and would not permit the full recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For Indo Evergreen and Zeta, we based normal value on the price at 
which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the 
exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as the export price, as 
defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
    Home market prices were based on either ex-factory or delivered 
prices. We reduced normal value for home market movement expenses, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii). We also 
reduced normal value for packing costs incurred in the home market, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased normal value to 
account for U.S. packing expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A). We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances 
of sale (COS) in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.410, by deducting home market direct selling expenses (i.e., 
credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit, U.S. 
warranty and bank charges), where applicable.
    Finally, we made adjustments to normal value, where appropriate, 
for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Calculation of Constructed Value

    We calculated CV for Dieng/Surya in accordance with section 773(e) 
of the Act, which indicates that CV shall be based on the sum of the 
respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the subject 
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For 
Dieng/Surya, we relied on the submitted CV information except for the 
following adjustments:
    For Dieng/Surya, because of the absence of comparable third country 
sales during the POR, we derived profit in accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 839-841 (1994). 
Section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act allows the Department to use the 
weighted average of the actual profit amounts realized by other 
exporters or producers that are subject to the review in connection 
with the production and sale of a foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. See 19 CFR 
351.405(b)(2) (stating that under section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, 
``foreign country'' means the country in which the 
merchandise is produced).
    Because Indo Evergreen and Zeta both have a viable home market, and 
actual company-specific profit data are available, we calculated Dieng/
Surya's profit as a weighted average of the profit amounts experienced 
by Indo Evergreen and Zeta. For further details, see Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum

[[Page 10370]]

from Rebecca Trainor, Case Analyst, to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, 
Program Manager, dated February 28, 2002, for Dieng/Surya.
    For Dieng/Surya's selling expenses, we used the company's actual 
selling expenses incurred on sales to its third country market because 
this data reflects Dieng's/Surya's actual experience in selling the 
foreign like product. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 63 FR 
56613, 56615 (October 22, 1998).

Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons

    For Dieng/Surya, we based normal value on CV, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For price-to-CV comparisons, we made 
adjustments to CV for COS differences, in accordance with 773(a)(8) of 
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting third 
country market direct selling expenses (comprised of imputed credit) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (comprised of imputed credit, 
warranties and bank charges).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the period February 1, 2000, 
though January 31, 2001, are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Manufacture/exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT Dieng Djaya and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa.                    0.59%
PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp...........       0.09% (de minimis)
PT Zeta Agro Corporation.......................       0.27% (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose calculations used in our analysis to parties to 
this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, or the first work day thereafter.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099. Requests should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties who submit case briefs 
or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the 
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the 
Customs Service upon completion of this review. The final results of 
this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties 
on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review 
and for future deposits of estimated duties. We will instruct the 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). For 
assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific 
assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping 
margins calculated for all U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount 
by the total entered value of the sales examined. In order to estimate 
the entered value, we will subtract applicable movement expenses from 
the gross sales value.

Cash Deposit Requirements.

    The following cash 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 the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the 
cash deposit rate 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 original 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) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 11.26 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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 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 the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published ign accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.


[[Page 10371]]


    February 28, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-5474 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S