[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51182-51191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-337-803]
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Determination To Revoke the Order in Part, and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh
Atlantic Salmon From Chile
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by fifteen producers/exporters of
subject merchandise and L.R. Enterprises,\1\ the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. This review
covers seventeen producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The
period of review (POR) is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L.R. Enterprises is a domestic producer of subject
merchandise with operations in Lubec, Maine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by
four of the respondents under review have been made below normal value
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we
will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and the normal value.
We are also rescinding this review with respect to 68 producers,
and preliminarily rescinding this review with regard to one producer.
Furthermore, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of this administrative review, we intend to revoke the
antidumping order with respect to Cultivos Marinos Chiloe Ltda.
(Cultivos Marinos), Pesquera Eicosal Ltda. (Eicosal), Salmones
Mainstream S.A. (Mainstream), and Salmones Pacifico Sur, S.A. (Pacifico
Sur). We do not intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with
respect to Cultivadora de Salmones Linao Ltda. (Linao) and Salmones
Tecmar, S.A. (Tecmar) because we have calculated a preliminary
antidumping margin for these companies in this administrative review.
If the final results of the review are positive antidumping margins for
Linao and Tecmar, these companies will not have had sales not below
their normal values for three consecutive years and, therefore, will
not be eligible for revocation. We do not intend to revoke the
antidumping duty with respect to Marine Harvest Chile S.A. (Marine
Harvest), either. Marine Harvest, as currently constituted, had not
existed for three years as of the end of the current review period, and
has only been reviewed for two consecutive periods.\2\ See Preliminary
Determination Not To Revoke section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In reaching its determination on this issue, the Department
is mindful of the fact that its determination in the changed
circumstances review is currently under review by the U.S. Court of
International Trade. The outcome of this litigation may affect the
Department's determination regarding revocation for Marine Harvest
in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties that submit arguments are requested to submit with
each argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of
the argument. Further, we would appreciate parties submitting comments
to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version
of any such comments on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Levstik or Constance Handley, at
(202) 482-2815 or (202) 482-0631, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement
Office V, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 51183]]
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's regulations are
to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).
Case History
On July 30, 1998, the Department issued an antidumping duty order
on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. See Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 40699 (July 30, 1998).
On July 2, 2001, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 66 FR 34910 (July 2,
2001).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), the following producers/
exporters made timely requests that the Department conduct an
administrative review for the period from July 1, 2000, through June
30, 2001: (1) Chile Cultivos, S.A. (Chile Cultivos); (2) Linao; (3)
Cultivos Marinos; (4) Fiordo Blanco S.A. (Fiordo Blanco); (5) Invertec
Pesquera Mar de Chiloe Ltda (Invertec); (6) Marine Harvest; (7) Pesca
Chile S.A. (Pesca Chile); (8) Eicosal; (9) Pesquera Pacific Star
(Pacific Star); (10) Robinson Crusoe Y Cia. Ltda. (Robinson Crusoe);
(11) Salmones Friosur S.A. (Friosur); (12) Mainstream; (13) Salmones
Multiexport Ltda. (Multiexport); (14) Pacifico Sur; and (15) Tecmar.
In addition, on July 31, 2001, L.R. Enterprises, Inc., a domestic
producer of subject merchandise, requested a review of 86 producers/
exporters of fresh Atlantic salmon. As explained below, L.R.
Enterprises, Inc., subsequently withdrew its request for review of all
but 17 of these companies.
On August 20, 2001, we published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period July 1,
2000, through June 30, 2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation
in Part, 66 FR 43570 (August 20, 2001).
Per letters filed on September 4, 7, 19, October 18, and November 1
and 16, 2001, L.R. Enterprises, Inc., withdrew its request for review
for all companies except the following: (1) Cultivos Marinos; (2)
Eicosal; (3) Friosur; (4) Invertec; (5) Linao; (6) Los Fiordos Ltda.
(Los Fiordos); (7) Mainstream; (8) Marine Harvest; (9) Multiexport;
(10) Ocean Horizons Chile S.A. (Oceans Horizons); (11) Pacifico Sur;
(12) Patagonia Salmon Farming S.A. (Patagonia); (13) Pesca Chile; (14)
Robinson Crusoe; (15) Salmones Andes S.A. (Andes); (16) Salmones
Unimarc, S.A. (Salmones Unimarc), and (17) Tecmar.
On September 13, 2001, Chile Cultivos submitted a letter
withdrawing its request for an administrative review.
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
Salmones Unimarc certified to the Department that it had not
shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Our
examination of entry data for U.S. imports confirmed that Salmones
Unimarc had not shipped subject merchandise to the United States during
the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 315.213(d)(3), we are
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Salmones Unimarc.
In addition we are rescinding the review with regard to the
following companies for which L.R. Enterprises, Inc., withdrew its
request for a review, and with regard to Chile Cultivos, which withdrew
its request for a review:
Acuicultura de Aquas Australes
Agromar Ltda.
Aguas Claras S.A.
Antarfish S.A.
Aquachile S.A.
Aquasur Fisheries Ltda.
Asesoria Acuicola S.A.
Australis S.A.
Best Salmon
Cenculmavique
Centro de Cultivo de Moluscos
Cerro Farrellon Ltda.
Chile Cultivos S.A.
Chisal S.A.
Comercializadora Smoltech Ltda.
Complejo Piscicola Coyhaique
Cultivos San Juan
Cultivos Yardan S.A.
Empresa Nichiro Chile Ltda.
Fiordo Blanco
Fisher Farms
Fitz Roy S.A.
Ganadera Del Mar
G.M. Tornagaleones S.A.
Hiuto Salmones S.A.
Huitosal Mares Australes Salmo Pac.
Instituto Tecnologico Del Salmon S.A.
Inversiones Pacific Star Ltda.
Manao Bay Fishery S.A.
Mardim Ltda.
Pacific Mariculture
Patagonia Fish Farming S.A.
Pesquera Antares S.A.
Pesquera Chiloe S.A.
Pesquera Friosur S.A.
Pesquera Mares de Chile S.A.
Pesquera Pacific Star
Pesquera Quellon Ltda.
Pesquera Y Comercial Rio Peulla S.A.
Piscicola Entre Rios S.A.
Piscicultura Iculpe
Piscicultura La Cascada
Piscultura Santa Margarita
Productos Del Mar Ventisqueros S.A.
Prosmolt S.A.
Quetro S.A.
River Salmon S.A.
Salmoamerica
Salmones Antarctica S.A.
Salmones Aucar Ltda.
Salmones Caicaen S.A.
Salmones Calbuco S.A.
Salmones Chiloe S.A.
Salmones Huillinco S.A.
Salmones Ice Val Ltda.
Salmones Llanquihue
Salmones Pacific Star Ltda.
Salmones Quellon
Salmones Ranco Sur Ltda.
Salmones Skyring S.A.
Salmones Tierra Del Fuego Ltda.
Salmosan
Seafine Salmon S.A.
Soc. Alimentos Maritimos Avalon Ltda.
Soc. Aquacultivos Ltda.
Truchas Aguas Blancas Ltda.
Trusal S.A.
Ventisqueros S.A.
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this review is fresh, farmed Atlantic
salmon, whether imported ``dressed'' or cut. Atlantic salmon is the
species Salmo salar, in the genus Salmo of the family salmoninae.
``Dressed'' Atlantic salmon refers to salmon that has been bled,
gutted, and cleaned. Dressed Atlantic salmon may be imported with the
head on or off; with the tail on or off; and with the gills in or out.
All cuts of fresh Atlantic salmon are included in the scope of the
review. Examples of cuts include, but are not limited to: crosswise
cuts (steaks), lengthwise cuts (fillets), lengthwise cuts attached by
skin (butterfly cuts), combinations of crosswise and lengthwise cuts
(combination packages), and Atlantic salmon that is minced, shredded,
or ground. Cuts may be subjected to various degrees of trimming, and
imported with the skin on or off and with the ``pin bones'' in or out.
Excluded from the scope are (1) fresh Atlantic salmon that is ``not
farmed'' (i.e., wild Atlantic salmon); (2) live Atlantic salmon; and
(3) Atlantic salmon that has been subject to further processing, such
as frozen, canned, dried, and smoked Atlantic salmon, or processed into
forms such as sausages, hot dogs, and burgers.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable as
item
[[Page 51184]]
numbers 0302.12.0003 and 0304.10.4093, 0304.90.1009, 0304.90.1089, and
0304.90.9091 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act, we verified
information provided by Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, Mainstream, Marine
Harvest, Pacifico Sur, Tecmar and Linao. We used standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of the respondent producers'
facilities and examination of relevant sales and financial records.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP)
to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Constructed Export
Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to
compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and
comparison markets that are identical with respect to the matching
characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products
produced by the respondents that fit the definition of the scope of the
review and were sold in the comparison markets during the POR fall
within the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on
four criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison
market sales of the foreign like product: form, grade, weight band, and
trim. As in all previous administrative reviews, we have determined
that it is generally not possible to match products of dissimilar
forms, grades, and weight bands, because there are significant
differences among products that cannot be accounted for by means of a
difference-in-merchandise adjustment; we did, where appropriate, make
comparisons of merchandise with different trims. (Unlike the other
three physical characteristics, trim is the result of a processing
operation with readily identifiable differences in the variable cost of
manufacturing, which permits the comparison of similar products with a
difference-in-merchandise adjustment.) See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from
Chile, 65 FR 78472 (December 15, 2000). Where there were no appropriate
sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in
the United States to constructed value (CV).
Collapse of Affiliated Parties
In November 2000, Linao and Tecmar were wholly purchased by a
common parent, Fjord Seafood ASA. Such members of a corporate grouping
are considered affiliated parties under section 351.102(b) of the
Department's regulations (defining ``affiliated'' parties). Section
351.401(f)(1) of the regulations provides for affiliated producers of
subject merchandise to be treated as a single entity (i.e., collapsed),
where (1) those producers have production facilities for similar or
identical products that would not require substantial retooling of
either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and
(2) the Department concludes that there is a significant potential for
manipulation of price or production.
Section 351.401(f)(2) of the Department's regulations provides
factors for the Department to consider when looking for a significant
potential for manipulation of price or production, namely (i) the level
of common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or
board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an
affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as
through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and
pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or
significant transactions between the affiliated producers. Because they
were purchased by a common parent during the POR and have production
facilities for identical products, we find that there is a significant
potential for the manipulation of prices or production. Accordingly,
for the period November 15, 2000 through June 30, 2001 we have
collapsed Linao and Tecmar (Linao/Tecmar) for purposes of our analysis.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or
CEP as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively.
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. Section
772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold inside the United States before or after the
date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter
of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under subsections
772(c) and (d) of the Act.
For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate,
based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer
in the United States. Where sales were made through an unaffiliated
consignment broker, we did not consider the consignment broker to be
the customer; rather, we considered the customer to be the consignment
broker's customer.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, for both the EP
and CEP transactions, we reduced the starting price by amounts for
movement expenses and export taxes and duties, where appropriate.
Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to
CEP. Consistent with past practice, for these sales we deducted from
the CEP commissions charged to, and other direct expenses incurred for
the account of, the producer/exporter related to economic activity in
the United States. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 65 FR 48457,
48460 (August 8, 2000). We did not deduct an amount for CEP profit for
these sales, because the commission already contains an element for
profit realized by the unaffiliated consignment broker. For Marine
Harvest, Multiexport and Pesca Chile, which made sales through an
affiliated reseller, we calculated a CEP profit ratio following the
methodology set forth in section 772(f) of the Act. We determined the
EP or CEP for each company as follows:
Andes
We calculated an EP for all of Andes' sales because the merchandise
was sold directly by Andes to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted
based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting
price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These include inland freight, international freight, and
brokerage.
Cultivos Marinos
We calculated an EP for all of Cultivos Marinos' sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Cultivos Marinos to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance
with
[[Page 51185]]
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign inland freight,
international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted
the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added
duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Eicosal
We calculated an EP for all of Eicosal's sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Eicosal to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, U.S. brokerage and U.S. duties. We also deducted
the amount for billing adjustments from the starting price and added
duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Friosur
We calculated an EP for all of Friosur's sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Friosur to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, domestic and U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, U.S. customs duties and unloading costs. We also added duty
drawback to the starting price, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B)
of the Act.
Invertec
We calculated an EP for all of Invertec's sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Invertec to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, domestic and U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses and U.S. customs duties. We also added duty drawback to the
starting price, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Linao and Tecmar
For the period July 1, 2000 through November 14, 2001, we performed
company-specific analyses for Linao and Tecmar. As of November 15,
2001, due to our decision to collapse the two companies, the databases
of the two companies were merged, and a joint analysis was performed.
During the POR, Linao made both EP and CEP transactions. We
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by
Linao to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to
importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of
record. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the account of the
producer/exporter by an unaffiliated consignment broker in the United
States after the date of importation. EP and CEP sales were based on
the packed, delivered and duty-paid (DDP) U.S. port and CIF U.S. port
prices for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from
the starting price for discounts and rebates, as well as movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These
include inland freight, international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S.
duties. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the
starting price and added the amount for duty drawback, in accordance
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we
also deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States,
including commissions to unaffiliated consignment brokers, direct
selling expenses (credit expenses and industry association fees), and
miscellaneous selling expenses incurred in the United States by the
unaffiliated consignment broker on behalf of the exporter which were
charged to the respondent separately from the commission. As discussed
above, we did not deduct an amount for CEP profit, because the
commission to the unaffiliated broker is considered to contain an
element of profit.
For Tecmar, we calculated an EP for all of Tecmar's sales because
the merchandise was sold directly by Tecmar to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties. We
also added the amount for duty drawback to the starting price, in
accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Los Fiordos
We calculated an EP for all of Los Fiordos' sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Los Fiordos to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties.
We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting
price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B)
of the Act.
Mainstream
We calculated an EP for all of Mainstream's sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Mainstream to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties.
We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments from the starting
price and added duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B)
of the Act.
Marine Harvest
We calculated a CEP for Marine Harvest's sales, all of which were
made by an affiliated reseller in the United States after the date of
importation. We made deductions from the starting price for movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These
include inland freight, international freight, U.S. duties and U.S.
brokerage. We also deducted the amount for billing adjustments and
rebates from the starting price, in accordance with section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and added duty drawback, in accordance with
section 772(c)(1)(B).
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States,
including commissions and other direct selling expenses (credit,
inspection association fees, and brokerage, handling and document
processing costs). We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
[[Page 51186]]
Multiexport
During the POR, Multiexport made both EP and CEP transactions. We
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by
Multiexport to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
prior to importation. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the
account of the producer/exporter by an affiliated reseller in the
United States after the date of importation.
We made deductions from the starting price for rebates, as well as
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
These include inland freight, international freight, and U.S. duties.
We also added the amounts for delivery revenues and for duty drawback,
in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales we
also deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States,
including direct selling expenses (including credit expenses and
miscellaneous direct selling expenses), and indirect selling expenses
incurred by the affiliated reseller in the United States. We also
deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section
772(d)(3) of the Act.
Ocean Horizons
We calculated a CEP for Ocean Horizon's sales, all of which were
made by an affiliated reseller in the United States after the date of
importation. We made deductions from the starting price for movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These
include inland freight, international freight, foreign brokerage and
handling, and U.S. duties. We also added duty drawback, in accordance
with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we
also deducted from the starting price those direct selling expenses
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United
States (credit and inspection association fees). We also deducted from
CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act.
Pacifico Sur
We calculated an EP for all of Pacifico Sur's U.S. sales because
the merchandise was sold directly by Pacifico Sur to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also added
the amount for duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B)
of the Act.
Patagonia
We calculated an EP for all of Patagonia's U.S. sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Patagonia to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
international freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also added
the amount for duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B)
of the Act.
Pesca Chile
During the POR, Pesca Chile made both EP and CEP transactions. We
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by
Pesca Chile to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
prior to importation. We calculated a CEP for sales made for the
account of the producer/exporter by an affiliated reseller in the
United States after the date of importation.
We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland
freight, inland insurance, international freight, warehousing, U.S.
brokerage, and U.S. duties. We also deducted the amount for billing
adjustments and rebates from the starting price, in accordance with
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we
also deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States,
including commissions and other direct selling expenses (credit,
inspection association fees, and bank charges). We also deducted from
CEP an amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act.
Robinson Crusoe
We calculated an EP for all of Robinson Crusoe's sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by Robinson Crusoe to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include inland freight,
inland insurance, international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling,
and U.S. duties. We also added the amount for duty drawback to the
starting price, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market
sales and U.S. sales by Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, and Multiexport we
determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in Chile
permitted a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise
to the United States pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act,
because the quantity of sales in the home market was more than five
percent of the quantity of sales to the U.S. market for each of these
respondents. Accordingly, for those three respondents we based NV on
home market sales.
Respondents Andes, Friosur, Invertec, Los Fiordos, Mainstream,
Marine Harvest, Pesca Chile, and Robinson Crusoe did not have viable
home markets, as defined above. Therefore, for these respondents, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we based NV on the
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption
in each respondent's largest third-country market. For Andes, Friosur,
Invertec, Mainstream, Marine Harvest and Pesca Chile, the largest
third-country market is Brazil; for Robinson Crusoe, the largest third-
country market is Mexico; and for Los Fiordos, the largest third
country market is Canada.
Respondents Ocean Horizons, Pacifico Sur and Patagonia did not have
any viable comparison market. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(e) of the Act, we based NV for these respondents on CV.
Neither Tecmar nor Linao had viable home markets. In addition,
prior to its date of affiliation with Tecmar, Linao did not have a
viable comparison market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e)
of the Act, we based NV for Linao, for the period July 1, 2000 until
November 14, 2000, on CV. Tecmar's largest third-country market was
Argentina. We used Tecmar's sales to Argentina for the purposes of
calculating NV for Tecmar from July 1, 2000 until November 14, 2001. We
also used Tecmar's sales to Argentina for the
[[Page 51187]]
collapsed entity, Linao/Tecmar, after November 15, 2001.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on a timely allegation filed by L.R. Enterprises, we
initiated cost of production (COP) investigations of Multiexport,
Robinson Crusoe, Linao and Tecmar, and Pesca Chile to determine whether
sales were made at prices below the COP. See Memorandum From Case
Analysts to Gary Taverman, dated January 23, 2002. In addition, we
initiated a cost of production investigation of Marine Harvest to
determine whether sales were made at price below the COP. See
Memorandum From Case Analyst to Gary Taverman, dated February 8,
2002.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On October 30, 2001, L.R. Enterprises filed a cost
allegation with respect to Marine Harvest. On January 4, 2002, the
Department determined that this allegation was inadequate. See
Letter From Constance Handley to Michael Coursey, dated January 4,
2002. However, L.R. Enterprises submitted a revised cost allegation
on January 7, 2002, which the Department deemed adequate. As such,
the Department initiated a cost of production investigation on
February 8, 2002.
On November 26, 2001, L.R. Enterprises also filed a cost
allegation with respect to Mainstream. On January 23, 2002, the
Department determined that this allegation was inadequate, and did
not initiate a cost investigation with respect to that respondent.
See Memorandum From Case Analysts to Gary Taverman, dated January
23, 2002. On February 7, 2002, L.R. Enterprises submitted a letter
stating that the Department's decision with regard to Mainstream was
based on a flawed analysis. On April 17, 2002, the Department again
determined that the allegation of L.R. Enterprises was inadequate
and did not initiate a cost investigation with respect to
Mainstream. See Memorandum from Case Analyst to Bernard Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April
17, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the calculation of the
final results of the second administrative review of Eicosal, we had
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the
foreign like product by Eicosal had been made at prices below the COP
during the period of this review. Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we also initiated a COP investigation regarding
home market sales by Eicosal.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials,
fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied
on the submitted COPs except in the specific instances noted below,
where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.
Eicosal
We revised financial expenses to reflect changes determined at
verification.
Linao and Tecmar
We revised G&A and financial expenses to reflect changes determined
at verification.
Marine Harvest
We revised the cost of production, variable cost of manufacture and
total cost of manufacture reported in Schedule A for two forms/trims,
as determined at verification.
Pacifico Sur
We used the revised, verified costs presented at verification.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
As required by section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the adjusted
weighted-average COP for each respondent subject to a cost
investigation to the comparison-market sales prices of the foreign like
product, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at
prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial
quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP or revised COP, as appropriate, to
the comparison-market prices, less any applicable movement charges,
taxes, rebates, commissions, and other direct and indirect selling
expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP
and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)
of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average
COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the
product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We disregarded comparison market sales of
Eicosal, Linao and Tecmar, Marine Harvest, Multiexport, and Robinson
Crusoe.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We determined price-based NVs for respondent companies as follows.
For all respondents, we made adjustments for any differences in
packing, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, and we
deducted movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the
Act. In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences
in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made
adjustments, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling
expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the
commission offset).
Company-specific adjustments are described below.
Andes
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight and customs brokerage. We
made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for
third-country market sales (credit, association fees, Certificate of
Origin and Health Certificate fees, and bank charges) and adding U.S.
direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and bank charges).
In addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S.
packing expenses.
Cultivos Marinos
We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland
freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for home market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (credit). We also deducted home market packing expenses and
added U.S. packing expenses.
Eicosal
We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland
freight and billing adjustments. We made COS adjustments by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit) and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and bank
charges). We also deducted home market packing expenses and added U.S.
packing expenses.
[[Page 51188]]
Friosur
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We deducted billing adjustments and
adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight,
international freight and brokerage and handling. We made COS
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (including credit) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (including credit and quality control expenses). We also added
the amount for third-country duty drawback to the starting price. In
addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S.
packing expenses and third-country duty drawback.
Invertec
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight,
customs brokerage and special handling expenses. We made COS
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (including commissions, credit, certification
expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(including credit). We also added the amount for third-country duty
drawback to the starting price. In addition, we deducted third-country
packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses and third-country duty
drawback.
Linao and Tecmar
For Tecmar, from June 30, 2000 through November 14, 2001 and for
the collapsed entity Linao/Tecmar, we based third-country market prices
on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Argentina. We
adjusted for the following movement expenses: foreign inland freight,
international freight and brokerage and handling. We also added the
amount for third-country duty drawback to the starting price. In
addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S.
packing expenses. For comparisons to EP transactions in the United
States, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country market sales (including credit, quality
control, and health certification) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (including credit, quality control, and health certification).
For comparisons to CEP transactions, we made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on third-country market
sales.
Linao did not have a viable home market or third-country sales
prior to its affiliation with Tecmar. As discussed below, we calculated
CV for Linao's NV from July 1, 2000 to November 14, 2001.
Los Fiordos
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight, and
brokerage charges. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, association
fees and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit,
association fees and bank charges). We also added the amount for third-
country duty drawback to the starting price. In addition, we deducted
third-country packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses and
third-country duty drawback.
Mainstream
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight, international freight,
customs fees and airport handling charges. We made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market
sales (credit, sanitary certification fees, association fees, bank
charges, loan guarantee fees, and other direct selling expenses) and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and bank
charges).
Marine Harvest
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for inland freight, a
movement expense. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit, inspection
association fees, and brokerage, handling and document processing
costs). We also added third-country duty drawback to the starting
price. In addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and
added U.S. packing expenses.
Multiexport
We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland
freight. We also deducted home market packing expenses and added U.S.
packing expenses. For comparison to EP transactions, we made COS
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit).
For comparisons to CEP transactions, we made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales.
Ocean Horizons
Ocean Horizons did not have a viable home market or third-country
sales during the POR. As discussed below, we calculated CV for Ocean
Horizons' NV.
Pacifico Sur
Pacifico Sur did not have a viable home market or third-country
sales during the POR. As discussed below, we calculated CV for Pacifico
Sur's NV.
Patagonia
Patagonia did not have a viable home market or third-country sales
during the POR. As discussed below, we calculated CV for Patagonia's
NV.
Pesca Chile
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Brazil. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight and inland insurance. In
addition, we deducted third-country packing expenses and added U.S.
packing expenses and third-country duty drawback. For comparisons to EP
transactions, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred for third-country market sales (including
commissions, credit, association fees, and bank charges) and adding
U.S. direct selling expenses (including commissions, credit,
association fees, bank charges, and customs expenses). For comparisons
to CEP transactions, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct
selling expenses incurred on third-country market sales.
Robinson Crusoe
We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Mexico. We adjusted for the following
movement expenses: foreign inland freight and inland insurance. We made
COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for
third-country market sales (including credit, accounts receivable
insurance, association fees, and quality certification inspection
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (including credit,
accounts receivable insurance, association fees, and quality
certification inspection expenses). In addition, we deducted third-
country packing expenses and added U.S. packing expenses and third-
country duty drawback.
[[Page 51189]]
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
For those sales for which we could not determine NV based on
comparison-market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of
a comparable product in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP or
CEP, to CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based
on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign
like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative
expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing. We calculated CV based on
the methodology described in the COP section, above. In accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we used the actual amounts incurred
and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the comparison market to calculate SG&A expenses and
profit. For Linao, from July 1, 2000 through November 14, 2001, and for
Ocean Horizons, Pacifico Sur, and Patagonia, which had no comparison
market sales, we calculated CV following the same methodology, except
that we relied on the weighted-average SG&A and profit ratios of the
three respondents (Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal and Multiexport) that had
a viable home market, consistent with section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the
Act.
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS
differences, pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Company-specific
adjustments are described below.
Andes
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country market sales (credit, association fees,
Certificate of Origin and Health Certificate fees, and bank charges)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association fees, and
bank charges).
Cultivos Marinos
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for home market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (credit) and third-country duty drawback.
Eicosal
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct
selling expenses (credit expense, association fees, and bank charges).
Friosur
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for home market sales (including credit and quality control
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (including credit and
quality control expenses).
Linao and Tecmar
For Linao, from July 1, 2000 through November 14, 2001, we made COS
adjustments by deducting the weighted-average direct selling expenses
incurred by the three respondents that had a viable home market during
the period and, for comparison to EP transactions, adding U.S. direct
selling expenses (credit, quality control, and health certification
expenses).
For Tecmar, and for the collapsed entity Linao/Tecmar, we made COS
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (credit, quality control, and health certification
expenses). For comparison to EP transactions, we added U.S. direct
selling expenses (credit, quality control, and health certification
expenses).
Los Fiordos
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country sales (credit, association fees and bank
charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, association
fees and bank charges).
Mainstream
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country market sales (credit, sanitary certification
fees, association fees, bank charges, loan guarantee fees, and other
direct selling expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(credit, association fees, and bank charges).
Marine Harvest
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country sales (credit, inspection association fees,
and brokerage, handling and document processing costs).
Multiexport
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for home market sales (credit) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (credit) for comparison to EP transactions in the United
States.
Ocean Horizons
We made COS adjustments deducting the weighted-average direct
selling expenses incurred by the three respondents that had a viable
home market during the POR.
Pacifico Sur
We made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(including credit, inspection expenses, airline service charges and
food and drug charges) and deducting the weighted-average direct
selling expenses incurred by the three respondents that had a viable
home market during the POR.
Patagonia
We made COS adjustments by adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(including credit and inspection expenses) and deducting the weighted-
average direct selling expenses incurred by the three respondents that
had a viable home market during the POR.
Pesca Chile
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country sales (credit, commissions, association fees
and bank charges). For comparison to EP transactions, we added U.S.
direct selling expenses (credit, commissions, association fees and bank
charges).
Robinson Crusoe
We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred for third-country sales (credit, accounts receivable
insurance, association fees, and quality certification inspection
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, including credit,
accounts receivable insurance, association fees, and quality
certification inspection expenses.
Level of Trade/CEP Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP transactions. The NV level of
trade is that of the starting-price sale in the comparison market or,
when the NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A
expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the
level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to
the importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale
from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP transaction, we examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions
[[Page 51190]]
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different level of trade, and the difference affects price
comparability with U.S. sales, as manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export
transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes
From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002).
To apply these guidelines in this review, we obtained information
from each respondent about the marketing stages involved in its
reported U.S. and comparison-market sales, including a description of
the selling activities performed by the respondent for each of its
channels of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and
comparison market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected
in the starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we
considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the
deduction of expenses and profit pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
Generally, if the claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions
and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party
claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of
sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for each respondent, we
took into account the specific customer types, channels of
distribution, and selling practices of each respondent. We found that,
for all respondents, the fact pattern was virtually identical. Sales to
both the U.S. and comparison markets were made to distributors,
retailers, and, less commonly, to further-processors.
In this review, only three companies, Pesca Chile, Tecmar and Linao
requested LOT adjustments. For each of the respondents, with the
exception of Pesca Chile, we found that there was a single level of
trade in the United States and a single, identical, level of trade in
the comparison market. Therefore, it was not necessary to make any
level of LOT adjustments or CEP offset adjustments. The companies
requesting an LOT adjustment are discussed below, for all other
companies, a discussion of our LOT analysis is included in their
respective analysis memorandums.
Pesca Chile
For all its third country and EP sales, the selling functions Pesca
Chile performed for its different customer categories and channels of
distribution were virtually identical. Therefore, we found the EP and
home market levels of trade to be the same and made no level-of-trade
adjustment.
With regard to CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit
covered in section 772(d) of the Act: customer development, sales
negotiation, invoicing and collections, arranging customs clearance and
handling any claims. After we deducted the expenses and profit covered
in section 772(d), the NV level of trade was more remote from Pesca
Chile than that of its U.S. sales through affiliate Pescanova, Inc., as
adjusted. In addition, there is only one level of trade in the third-
country market and we have no other appropriate information on which to
determine if there is a pattern of consistent price differences between
the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the level
of trade of the export transactions. As a result, we are granting a CEP
offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Linao and Tecmar
During the POR, Linao claimed a CEP offset for its sales through an
unaffiliated consignment broker. During verification, the Department
noted that Linao does not perform fewer selling activities for U.S.
sales made through the consignment broker than for its comparison-
market sales. See Verification of the Sales and Cost Responses of
Cultivadora de Salmones Linao Ltda. and Salmones Tecmar S.A. in the
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Fresh Atlantic Salmon
from Chile From Case Analyst to Gary Taverman, dated July 31, 2002.
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily decided to deny Linao's
request for a CEP offset. For a further discussion of this issue, which
contains proprietary information, see the Analysis Memorandum for Linao
and Tecmar.
Preliminary Determination Not To Revoke Order
The Department ``may revoke, in whole or part'' an antidumping
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In
determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the
Secretary will consider: (A) Whether one or more exporters or producers
covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than NV for
a period of at least three consecutive years; (B) Whether, for any
exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to
have sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, the exporter or
producer agrees in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order,
as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the
Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the
revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and (C)
Whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is
otherwise necessary to offset dumping.
The Department's regulation requires, inter alia, that a company
requesting revocation submit the following: (1) A certification that
the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the
current review period and that the company will not sell at less than
NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject
merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming
the basis of the receipt of such a request; and (3) an agreement that
the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be
selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1)(i) See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping
Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743
(January 6, 2000). Cultivos Marinos, Eicosal, Mainstream, and Pacifico
Sur each submitted a certification to the effect that for a consecutive
three-year period, including the current review period, it sold the
subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than normal
value and that it would continue to do so in the future. Therefore,
because we have determined that these respondents satisfy the
requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b), we preliminarily determine to revoke
in part the antidumping order with respect to these respondents.
Although Linao and Tecmar each submitted this certification also, we
have preliminarily calculated an antidumping margin of 1.32 percent for
[[Page 51191]]
these companies in this review and these companies do not satisfy the
requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b).
As fully explained in the memorandum concerning the Preliminary
Determination to Revoke in Part the Antidumping Duty Order, dated July
31, 2002, we have also preliminarily determined not to revoke the
antidumping duty order with respect to Marine Harvest. This memorandum
is on file in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 1999,
through June 30, 2000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter/manufacturer average margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andes................................................... \1\0.16
Cultivos Marinos........................................ \1\0.10
Eicosal................................................. \1\ 0.44
Friosur................................................. \1\ 0.18
Invertec................................................ 0.00
Linao................................................... 1.32
Los Fiordos............................................. 1.62
Mainstream.............................................. \1\ 0.05
Marine Harvest.......................................... \1\ 0.11
Multiexport............................................. 0.00
Ocean Horizons.......................................... \1\ 0.08
Pacifico Sur............................................ 0.00
Patagonia............................................... \1\ 0.01
Pesca Chile............................................. 1.18
Robinson Crusoe......................................... \1\ 0.06
Tecmar.................................................. 1.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ De Minimis.
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication
of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals
to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or
comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of
publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate
it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department
with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on
diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results.
Assessment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We calculated importer-
specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct the U.S. Customs
Service to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that
importer.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for companies
listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this
review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de
minimis, the cash deposit 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 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) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 4.57
percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Because Linao and Tecmar were collapsed for only part of the POR,
for the purposes of calculating a duty-deposit rate for the collapsed
entity, we have calculated a weighted-average of the rates for both
companies during the pre-acquisition period with the rate calculated
for the combined entity. For the purposes of assessment, we will rely
on the period-specific results.
This notice 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 entities 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 31, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-19994 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P