[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45462-45467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-855]


Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 1999-2001 Administrative 
Review and Partial Rescission of Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of 1999-2001 Administrative 
Review, Partial Rescission of Review.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of certain non-frozen 
apple juice concentrate from the People's Republic of China were made 
below normal value during the period November 23, 1999 through May 31, 
2001. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties based on the difference between export price or constructed 
export price and normal value on all appropriate entries. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Matney or John Brinkmann, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-1778 or (202) 482-4126, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 
(April 2001).

Background

    On June 5, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(65 FR 35606) the antidumping duty order on certain non-frozen apple 
juice concentrate from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). On 
June 11, 2001, the Department notified interested parties of the 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (66 FR 
31203). On June 21, 2001, Shaanxi Gold Peter Natural Drink Co., Ltd. 
(``Gold Peter'') requested an administrative review. On June 22, 2001, 
Qingdao Nannan Foods Co., Ltd. (``Nannan''), Shaanxi Haisheng Fresh 
Fruit Juice Co., Ltd. (``Haisheng''), Shaanxi Hengxing Fruit Juice Co., 
Ltd. (``Hengxing''), Shaanxi Machinery and Equipment Import and Export 
Corporation (``SAAME''), Shandong ZhongLu Juice Group Co., Ltd. 
(``ZhongLu''), Xian Asia Qin Fruit Co., Ltd. (``Xian Asia''), and 
Yantai Oriental Juice Co., Ltd. (``Oriental'') (collectively ``Nannan 
et al.'') also requested administrative reviews. On June 28, 2001, 
Sanmenxia Lakeside Fruit Juice Co., Ltd. (``Lakeside'') requested an 
administrative review. On June 29, 2001, Coloma Frozen Foods, Inc., 
Green Valley Packers, Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., Mason County 
Fruit Packers Co-op, Inc., and Tree Top, Inc., (``the petitioners''), 
requested that, in addition to the above-mentioned requests, the 
Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping order 
for Xian Yang Fuan Juice Co., Ltd. (``Xian Yang''), Changsha Industrial 
Products & Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd. (``Changsha''), and 
Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation (``Shandong''). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), on July 23, 2001, we published a 
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review (66 
FR 38252).
    On November 14, 2001, the Department sent a letter to the Chinese 
Chamber of Commerce for the Import and Export of Foodstuffs, Native 
Produce & Animal By-Products (``China Chamber''), with a copy to the 
Embassy of the PRC in the United States, requesting that the China 
Chamber forward the questionnaire to the companies named in the 
initiation notice.
    On December 18, 2001, Xian Yang reported that it had no shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the November 23, 
1999, through May 31, 2001, period of review (``POR''). See ``Partial 
Rescission'' section, below. In December 2001 and January 2002, we 
received responses to the questionnaire from the following companies: 
Gold Peter, Haisheng, Hengxing, Lakeside, Nannan, Oriental, SAAME, Xian 
Asia, and ZhongLu. Shandong's response was received by the Department 
in March 2002. Changsha did not respond to the Department's original 
questionnaire. See ``Use of Fact Otherwise Available'' section, below.
    In December 2001, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on surrogate country selection and to provide publicly 
available information for valuing the factors of production. We 
received responses from Nannan et al. on February 11, 2002, and from 
Lakeside on February 12, 2002. The petitioners provided surrogate value 
information to the Department on March 5, 2002.
    On February 7, 2002, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, the Department found that it was not practicable to complete the 
review in the time allotted, and extended the time limit for the 
completion of the preliminary results in this case by 60 days (i.e., 
until no later than May 1, 2002) (67 FR 5788).
    In February and March 2002, we sent out supplemental questionnaires 
to Gold Peter, Lakeside, and Nannan et al.,

[[Page 45463]]

and received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in March 
2002. In April and May 2002, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to and received responses from Shandong.
    On May 1, 2002, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, 
the Department extended the time limit for the completion of the 
preliminary results in this case by an additional 60 days, (i.e., until 
no later than July 1, 2002) (67 FR 21633).

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is certain non-frozen apple juice 
concentrate (``NFAJC''). Certain NFAJC is defined as all non-frozen 
concentrated apple juice with a Brix scale of 40 or greater, whether or 
not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and whether or 
not fortified with vitamins or minerals. Excluded from the scope of 
this order are: frozen concentrated apple juice; non-frozen 
concentrated apple juice that has been fermented; and non-frozen 
concentrated apple juice to which spirits have been added.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings 2009.70.00.20 and 2106.90.52. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Partial Rescission

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily 
rescinding this review with respect to Xian Yang, which reported that 
it made no shipments of subject merchandise during this POR. We 
examined shipment data furnished by the Customs Service and are 
satisfied that the record does not indicate that there were U.S. 
entries of subject merchandise from Xian Yang during the POR.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in May 2002 we verified 
information provided by Haisheng, Hengxing, and Xian Asia using 
standard verification procedures, including onsite inspection of 
manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information.

Separate Rates Determination

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') 
country in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. None of 
the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment in this 
review. Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not argued that the 
PRC NFAJC industry is a market-oriented industry.
    Therefore, we are treating the PRC as an NME country within the 
meaning of section 773(c) of the Act. We allow companies in NME 
countries to receive separate antidumping duty rates for purposes of 
assessment and cash deposits when those companies can demonstrate an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
export activities.
    To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
Department analyzes each exporting entity 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) (``Silicon Carbide''). Under the 
separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if the respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de 
jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Absence of De Jure Control

    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control over export activities includes: 1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    The ten participating respondents have placed a number of documents 
on the record to demonstrate absence of de jure government control, 
including ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China'' 
(``Foreign Trade Law''), ``Company Law of the PRC'' (``Company Law''), 
the ``Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China 
Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations'' (``Administrative 
Regulations''), the ``Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-
Foreign Cooperative Joint Ventures'' (``Joint Ventures Law''), and the 
``Law of the People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned 
by the Whole People'' (``Industrial Enterprises Law''). The Foreign 
Trade Law grants autonomy to foreign trade operators in management 
decisions and establishes accountability for their own profits and 
losses. In prior cases, the Department has analyzed the Foreign Trade 
Law and found that it establishes an absence of de jure control. (See, 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Partial-
Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic 
of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995); 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) (``Mushrooms'')). We 
have no new information in this proceeding which would cause us to 
reconsider this determination.
    The Company Law is designed to meet the PRC's needs of establishing 
a modern enterprise system, and to maintain social and economic order. 
The Department has noted that the Company Law supports an absence of de 
jure control because of its emphasis on the responsibility of each 
company for its own profits and losses, thereby decentralizing control 
of companies.
    In keeping with the Company Law, the Administrative Regulations 
safeguard social and economic order, as well as establishing an 
administrative system for the registration of corporations. The 
Department has reviewed the Administrative Regulations and concluded 
that they show an absence of de jure control by requiring companies to 
bear civil liabilities independently, thereby decentralizing control of 
companies.
    The Joint Ventures Law states that Chinese and foreign parties 
shall share earnings and bear risks jointly. An analysis of the Joint 
Ventures Law by the Department further indicates lack of de jure 
control for Oriental, Xian Asia, and ZhongLu, those respondents 
actually subject to this law.
    The Industrial Enterprises Law provides that enterprises owned by 
``the whole people'' shall make their own management decisions, be 
responsible for their own profits and losses, choose their own 
suppliers, and purchase their own goods and materials. As in prior PRC 
cases, the Department has analyzed the Industrial Enterprises Law and 
found that this law establishes mechanisms for private control of 
companies, which indicates an absence of de jure control. See Pure 
Magnesium from the People's Republic off China:

[[Page 45464]]

Final Results of New Shipper Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 
1998).
    According to the respondents, NFAJC exports are not affected by 
quota allocations or export license requirements. The Department has 
examined the record in this case and does not find any evidence that 
NFAJC exports are affected by quota allocations or export license 
requirements. By contrast, the evidence on the record demonstrates that 
the producers/exporters have the autonomy to set the price at whatever 
level they wish through independent price negotiations with their 
foreign customers and without government interference.
    Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of 
de jure government control over export pricing and marketing decisions 
of the respondents.

Absence of De Facto Control

    De facto absence of government control over exports is based on 
four factors: 1) whether each exporter sets its own export prices 
independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; 2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) whether each exporter 
has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; 
4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management (see Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589).
    As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. (See 
Mushrooms, 63 FR at 72255). Therefore, the Department has determined 
that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
    The Department has reviewed the record in this case and notes that 
each respondent: (1) establishes its own export prices; (2) negotiates 
contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) makes its own personnel decisions; (4) retains the 
proceeds from export sales and uses profits according to its business 
needs without any restrictions; and (5) does not coordinate or consult 
with other exporters regarding pricing decisions.
    The information on the record supports a preliminary finding that 
there is an absence of de facto governmental control of the export 
functions of these companies. Consequently, we preliminarily determine 
that all responding exporters have met the criteria for the application 
of separate rates.
    Changsha did not submit a response to the Department's antidumping 
duty questionnaire, including the separate rates section. We therefore 
preliminarily determine that Changsha did not establish its entitlement 
to a separate rate in this review and, therefore, is presumed to be 
part of the PRC NME entity and, as such, is subject to the PRC country-
wide rate. See the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' section, below.

PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    As noted above, Changsha is appropriately considered part of the 
PRC-wide entity. This entity did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. 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.
    Because the PRC entity did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) 
and (C) of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate 
(see, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for 
Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000) (for a 
more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 40609, 
40610-40611 (June 30, 2000)); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China, 
62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997); and Certain Grain-Oriented 
Electrical Steel from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 2655 (January 17, 1997) (for a more 
detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from 
Italy, 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 4, 1996)). Because the PRC entity 
provided no information, sections 782(d) and (e) are not relevant to 
our analysis.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, 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. 
103-316, at 870 (1994).
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the 
final determination from the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a 
respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it 
is unable to provide requested information, but also to provide a 
``full explanation and suggested alternative forms.'' On November 14, 
2001, the Department transmitted its questionnaire to Changsha via 
priority mail. We confirmed with the delivery company that this 
transmission was received and signed for by Changsha personnel on 
November 19, 2001. Changsha did not submit a response to our 
questionnaire by the deadline established for such submissions. On 
March 27, 2002, the Department wrote to Changsha via e-mail asking 
whether the company had received the November 14, 2001, questionnaire, 
and whether it had, in fact, decided not to comply with our requests 
for information. On March 31, 2002, the Department made a similar 
inquiry via facsimile. The Department received no responses from 
Changsha personnel to either the e-mail or the facsimile. Therefore, we 
determine that the PRC entity failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability, making the use of an adverse inference appropriate.
    In this proceeding, in accordance with Department practice (see, 
e.g., Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Brake Rotors

[[Page 45465]]

From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 12, 
1999); Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 
1999); and Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 33295 (May 23, 
2000) (for a more detailed discussion, see Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic From the People's 
Republic of China, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 1999)), as adverse facts 
available, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC entity (which 
includes Changsha) the PRC-wide rate of 51.74 percent, which is the 
PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation (see Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People's Republic of China, 65 
FR 19873 (April 13, 2000) (``Final Determination'')) and the highest 
dumping margin determined in any segment of this proceeding. The 
Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the 
possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 
1998).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
described in the SAA as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition 
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The 
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative value (id.). To corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used. To examine the reliability 
of margins in the petition, we examine whether, based on available 
evidence, those margins reasonably reflect a level of dumping that may 
have occurred during the period of investigation by any firm, including 
those that did not provide us with usable information. This procedure 
generally consists of examining, to the extent practicable, whether the 
significant elements used to derive the petition margins, or the 
resulting margins, are supported by independent sources. With respect 
to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider 
information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are 
circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin may not be relevant, 
the Department will attempt to find a more appropriate basis for facts 
available. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as best 
information available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin). We have determined that there is no evidence on the record 
which would render the application of the petition margin 
inappropriate. Therefore, we consider the petition information relevant 
for this proceeding.
    Furthermore, in the underlying LTFV investigation, we established 
the reliability of the petition margin (see Final Determination). As 
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates 
that the petition rate is not reliable for use as the adverse facts 
available rate for the PRC-wide rate, we determine that this rate has 
probative value and, therefore, is an appropriate basis for the PRC- 
wide rate to be applied in this review to exports of subject 
merchandise by the PRC entity (which includes Changsha).

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For certain sales made by Haisheng, ZhongLu, Oriental, and Xian 
Asia, and all sales made by Shandong to the United States, we used 
constructed export price (``CEP'') in accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred 
after importation of the merchandise into the United States. For sales 
made by nine of the participating respondents (excluding Shandong, and 
including certain sales made by Haisheng, Oriental, Xian Asia, and 
ZhongLu), we used export price (``EP''), in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into 
the United States and because the CEP methodology was not warranted by 
other circumstances.
    We calculated EP based on the CIF, C&F, CFR, FOB, and delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers, as appropriate. In accordance with 
section 772(c) of the Act, we deducted from these prices, where 
appropriate, amounts for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, 
other U.S. transportation expense, U.S. customs duty (including 
merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees), and U.S. 
warehousing. We valued the deductions for foreign inland freight and 
brokerage and handling using surrogate data, which were based on Indian 
freight costs. (We selected India as the surrogate country for the 
reasons explained in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, 
below.) When marine insurance and ocean freight were provided by PRC-
owned companies, we valued the deductions using surrogate value data 
(amounts charged by market-economy providers). However, when some or 
all of a specific company's ocean freight or marine insurance was 
provided directly by market economy companies and paid for in a market 
economy currency, we used the reported market economy ocean freight or 
marine insurance values for all U.S. sales made by that company. See 19 
CFR 351.408(c)(1).
    We calculated CEP based on the ex-dock (PRC), ex-dock (USA), CIF, 
DDP (delivered duty paid), and delivered prices from Haisheng, ZhongLu, 
Oriental, Shandong and Xian Asia's U.S. subsidiaries to unaffiliated 
customers. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we deducted 
from the starting price for CEP amounts for foreign inland freight, 
foreign inland insurance, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
inland freight, other U.S. transportation expense, U.S. customs duty 
(including merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees), U.S. 
brokerage and handling expense, U.S. freight forwarder fee, and U.S. 
warehousing expense.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made further 
deductions for the following selling expenses that related to economic 
activity in the United States: commissions, warranties, outside 
laboratory testing fees, drum relabeling expenses, credit expenses, 
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs), and 
other direct selling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act, we also deducted from the starting price an amount for profit.

[[Page 45466]]

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (``NV'') using a factors-of-production 
methodology if: (1) the subject merchandise is exported from an NME 
country, and (2) the Department finds that the available information 
does not permit the calculation of NV under section 773(a) of the Act. 
We have no basis to determine that the available information would 
permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or costs. Therefore, we 
calculated NV based on factors data in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    Under the factors-of-production methodology, we are required to 
value, to the extent possible, the NME producer's inputs in a market 
economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development 
and that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We chose 
India as the surrogate on the basis of the criteria set out in sections 
773(c)(2)(B) and 773(c)(4) of the Act, and in 19 CFR 351.408(b). See 
the December 26, 2001, Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Jeff May ``1st 
Administrative Review of Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the 
People's Republic of China,'' (``Surrogate Country Memo'') for a 
further discussion of our surrogate selection, which is on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department 
building (``CRU''). See also the July 1, 2002, Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach from Team, ``Significant Production of Comparable 
Merchandise,'' which is also on file in the CRU.
    We used publicly available information from India to value the 
various factors. Because some of the Indian import data was not 
contemporaneous with the POR, unless otherwise noted, we inflated the 
data to the POR using the Indian wholesale price indices (``WPI'') 
published by the International Monetary Fund.
    Pursuant to the Department's factors-of-production methodology as 
provided in section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c), we valued 
the respondents' reported factors of production by multiplying them by 
the following values (for a complete description of the factor values 
used, see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach: ``Factors of Production 
Values Used for the Preliminary Results,'' dated July 1, 2002, which is 
on file in the CRU):
    Juice Apples: We have preliminarily valued juice apples at the 
weighted average price paid for culled or processing grade apples in 
India, based on information in two articles from The Tribune, an Indian 
news source. These articles describe the price charged to the Himachal 
Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation 
(``the HPMC''), a state-owned fruit processing company, for apples 
procured under the Government of India's price support scheme for apple 
growers, as well as the prices obtained for the remaining apples (i.e., 
apples that are not processed by the HPMC and are sold at auction). 
According to these articles, the HPMC pays rupees 2.25 per kilo for the 
apples it processes. The prices for the remaining apples ranged from 
rupees 0.6 to 2.50 per kilo. We weighted the prices paid by the HPMC 
and the average auction prices by the amounts of apples procured by the 
HPMC and the amounts sold at auction, respectively, with the result 
that the value of juice apples was rupees 1.34 per kilo. Because of the 
wide range of prices reported for auctioned apples, and because the 
information in the articles is not sufficiently detailed to allow us to 
know the amounts sold at the various prices, we are inviting parties to 
submit additional information regarding the prices of juice apples in 
India.
    Processing Agents: We valued pectinex enzyme, amylase enzyme, 
bentonite, diatomite, gelatin, silica gel, and activated carbon using 
the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: 
Imports (``Indian import statistics'') for the period January 2000 
through May 2001.
    Labor: Pursuant to section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's 
regulations, we valued labor using the regression-based wage rate for 
the PRC published by Import Administration on its website.
    Electricity and Coal: To value electricity, we used electricity 
rate data from the Energy Data Directory &Yearbook (1999/2000). We 
determined that the most contemporaneous information on the record for 
coal could be derived from Indian import statistics. Prices for goods 
vary over time, and therefore contemporaneity is significant to our 
selection of an appropriate surrogate value. Therefore, we based the 
value of coal on Indian import statistics.
    Factory Overhead, SG&A, and Profit: We derived ratios for factory 
overhead, SG&A, and profit, using 2000-01 data from the audited 
financial statements of Himalayan Vegefruit Ltd., identified in the 
investigation as an Indian producer of products the same as, and 
similar to, the subject merchandise.
    Packing Materials: We calculated values for aseptic bags, plastic 
liners, labels, wood bins, steel corners, steel bolts, steel bands, 
steel clips, styrofoam padding, adhesive tape, nails, and cardboard 
boxes using Indian import statistics from the period January 2000 
through May 2001. We converted values from a per kilogram to a per 
piece basis, where necessary.
    For steel drums, we could not find a reliable Indian value. 
Therefore, we used a 1994 Indonesian price and inflated it using the 
Indonesian WPI.
    Inland Freight Rates: To value truck freight rates, we used a July 
2000 newspaper article from the Indian Express Newspaper. With regard 
to rail freight, we based our calculation on a price quote from the 
Northern Railway. We calculated an average per kilometer per metric ton 
rate.
    International Freight: We used rates collected from the Federal 
Maritime Commission's Automated Tariff Filing Information (``AFTI'') 
database. Where an individual PRC producer/exporter used a market-
economy shipper and paid for the shipping in a market-economy currency, 
and could provide the complete documentation of the transaction, we 
calculated an average price for shipping paid by that producer/
exporter.
    Marine Insurance: We used a June 1998 price quote from a U.S. 
insurance provider, as we have in past PRC cases. See also Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 1996-97 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Determination Not 
To Revoke Order in Part, 63 FR 63842 (November 17, 1998).
    Brokerage and Handling: We used the public version of a U.S. sales 
listing reported in the questionnaire response submitted by Meltroll 
Engineering for Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 
2000). Because this information is not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
adjusted the data to the POR by using the Indian WPI.
    By-products: Certain respondents reported by-products resulting 
from production of the subject merchandise. For those respondents that 
reported their production of apple essence/aroma and/or apple pomace, 
we have offset the cost of materials with a by-product credit. The 
value for apple essence/aroma was calculated as a simple average of the 
various prices reported at the July 1999 ITC hearing and 1999 price 
quotes provided to the Department by two U.S. brokers of food products. 
Apple pomace was valued using an

[[Page 45467]]

April 2000 study published by the University of Georgia.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminary determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period November 23, 1999, through May 31, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-average margin
           Exporter/manfacturer                      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changsha Industrial Products & Minerals                            51.74
 Import and Export Co., Ltd. (included in
 the PRC entity)..........................
Qingdao Nannan Foods Co., Ltd.............                          0.00
Sanmenxia Lakeside Fruit Juice Co., Ltd...                          0.00
Shaanxi Gold Peter Natural Drink Co., Ltd.                          0.00
Shaanxi Haisheng Fresh Fruit Juice Co.,                             0.00
 Ltd......................................
Shaanxi Hengxing Fruit Juice Co. Ltd......                          0.00
Shaanxi Machinery & Equipment Import &                              0.00
 Export Corporation.......................
Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export                               0.00
 Corporation..............................
Shandong ZhongLu Juice Group Co. Ltd......                          0.00
Xian Asia Qin Fruit Co., Ltd..............                          0.00
Yantai Oriental Juice Co., Ltd............                          0.00
PRC-wide rate.............................                         51.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 42 days after the 
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues 
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Furthermore, as discussed in 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may 
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic 
version included.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the PRC companies 
named above, the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms 
established in the final results of this review, except that, for 
exporters with de minimis rates, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no 
deposit will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the 
company-specific rate established for the most recent period during 
which they were reviewed; (3) for all other PRC exporters (including 
Changsha), the rate will be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 51.74 
percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
from the PRC, 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 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    DATED: July 1, 2002.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-17196 Filed 7-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S