[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51171-51178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19995]



[[Page 51171]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-813]


Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination to Revoke 
Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise and by the petitioners, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand. This review 
covers nine producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period 
of review (POR) is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
    We preliminarily determine that for certain producers/exporters 
sales 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 based on the difference 
between the export price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP), as 
applicable, and the NV.
    Furthermore, if the preliminary results for one exporter/producer, 
Siam Food Products Public Co. Ltd. (SFP) are adopted in our final 
results of this administrative review, we intend to revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to SFP, based on three consecutive 
review periods of sales at not less than normal value. See Intent to 
Revoke section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2002.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 351 (2002).

Case History

    On July 18, 1995, the Department issued an antidumping duty order 
on CPF from Thailand. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended 
Final Determination: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 36775 
(July 18, 1995). On July 24, 2001, we published in the Federal Register 
the notice of opportunity to request the sixth 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); and Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review; Correction, 66 FR 38455 (July 24, 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: Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita); Kuiburi Fruit 
Canning Company Limited (Kuiburi); Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. 
(Malee); SFP; The Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (TIPCO); and Dole 
Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole Thailand, Ltd 
(collectively, Dole).
    In addition, on July 31, 2001, the petitioners, Maui Pineapple 
Company and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), submitted a timely request 
that the Department conduct a review of Malee, Prachuab Fruit Canning 
Company (Praft), Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co., Ltd. (SIFCO), the Thai 
Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC), SFP, TIPCO, Vita, and 
Dole.
    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).
    On September 17, 2001, in response to the Department's 
questionnaire, Praft stated that it made no shipments to the United 
States of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department 
independently confirmed with the U.S. Customs Service that there were 
no shipments from Praft during the POR. See Memorandum to File from 
David Layton, November 5, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 
351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, and consistent with our 
practice, we are treating Praft as a non-shipper for purposes of this 
review and are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to 
Praft.

Scope of the Review

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

Verification

    As provided in sections 782(i)(2) and (3) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by SFP, Vita and Kuiburi. 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 EP or the CEP, as applicable, 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 in the U.S. and comparison markets of products 
that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: 
weight, form, variety, and grade. Where we were unable to compare sales 
of identical merchandise, we compared U.S. products with the most 
similar merchandise sold in the comparison market based on the 
characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. Where there 
were no appropriate comparison market sales of comparable merchandise, 
we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to constructed 
value (CV), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For all 
respondents, we based the date of sale on the date of the invoice.

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

[[Page 51172]]

the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed be 
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or 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.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we calculated the 
EP and CEP by deducting movement expenses and export taxes and duties 
from the starting price, where appropriate. Section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act provides for additional adjustments to CEP. Accordingly, for CEP 
sales we also reduced the starting price by direct and indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the United States and an amount for profit.
    We determined the EP or CEP for each company as follows:

TIPCO

    For TIPCO's U.S. sales, the merchandise was sold either directly by 
TIPCO or indirectly through its U.S. affiliate, TIPCO Marketing Co. 
(TMC), to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation. We calculated an EP for all of TIPCO's sales because 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. Although 
TMC is a company legally incorporated in the United States, the company 
does not have either business premises or employees in the United 
States. TIPCO employees based in Bangkok conduct all of TMC's 
activities out of TIPCO's Bangkok headquarters, including invoicing, 
paperwork processing, receipt of payment, and arranging for customs and 
brokerage. Accordingly, as the merchandise was sold before importation 
by TMC outside the United States, we have determined these sales to be 
EP transactions. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 37518 
(June 15, 2000) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Hylsa Comment 
3.
    We calculated EP based on the packed FOB or CIF price to 
unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions 
from the starting price for foreign movement expenses (including 
brokerage and handling, port charges, stuffing expenses, and inland 
freight), international freight, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. 
brokerage and handling. See Analysis Memorandum for The Thai Pineapple 
Public Co., Ltd. dated July 31, 2002 (TIPCO Analysis Memorandum).

SFP

    We calculated an EP for all of SFP's sales because the merchandise 
was sold directly by SFP outside the United States to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise indicated. SFP has one employee in the United 
States; however, this employee does not: (1) Take title to the subject 
merchandise; (2) issue invoices or receive payments; or (3) arrange for 
other aspects of the transaction. The merchandise was shipped directly 
by SFP in Bangkok to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. 
The information on the record indicates that SFP's Bangkok office is 
responsible for confirming orders and for issuing the invoice directly 
to the customer. Payment also is sent directly from the unaffiliated 
U.S. customer to SFP in Bangkok. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that these sales were made in Bangkok prior to importation 
and, thus, are properly classified as EP transactions.
    We calculated EP based on the packed FOB price to unaffiliated 
purchasers for exportation to the United States. We made deductions for 
foreign movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. See Analysis Memorandum for Siam Food Products Public Co. 
Ltd., dated July 31, 2002 (SFP Analysis Memorandum).

Vita

    We calculated an EP for all of Vita's sales because the merchandise 
was sold directly by Vita outside the United States to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed 
FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 
deductions from the starting price for foreign movement expenses 
(including brokerage and handling, terminal handling charge, bill of 
lading fee, customs clearance (shipping) charge, port charges, document 
fee, stuffing expenses, inland freight and other miscellaneous 
charges). See Analysis Memorandum for Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., 
Ltd., dated July 31, 2002 (Vita Analysis Memorandum).

Kuiburi

    We calculated an EP for all of Kuiburi's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Kuiburi outside the United States to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation, and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP 
based on the packed, FOB or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers for 
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign movement expenses and international freight. See Analysis 
Memorandum for Kuiburi Fruit Canning Company Limited, dated July 31, 
2002 (Kuiburi Analysis Memorandum).

SIFCO

    We calculated an EP for all of SIFCO's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by SIFCO outside the United States to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, 
and CEP was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the 
packed, FOB or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to 
the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 
we made deductions from the starting price for foreign movement 
expenses including inland freight (which consisted of handling charges, 
port/gate charges, stuffing charges, document charges, and truck 
costs), international freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling. See 
Analysis Memorandum for Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co., Ltd., dated July 
31, 2002 (SIFCO Analysis Memorandum).
    SIFCO reported its sales contract date as the date of sale in its 
sales data base. However, in its responses to Section A and to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire it indicated that certain terms 
of sale can and do change up to the invoice date. It also indicated 
that if the terms of sale are changed for a given transaction, the 
original sales contract is cancelled and a new contract is created. 
Since SIFCO can and did change the terms of sale after the original 
contract date, we have determined that invoice date is the proper date 
of sale.

TPC

    During the POR, TPC had both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated 
an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by TPC outside 
the United

[[Page 51173]]

States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation. We calculated a CEP for sales made by TPC's affiliated 
U.S. reseller, Mitsubishi International Corporation (MIC), after 
importation of the subject merchandise into the United States during 
the first 10 months of the POR. For the remainder of the POR, we 
calculated CEP for sales of MIC's products by Chicken of the Sea 
International (COSI) in the United States. EP and CEP were based on the 
packed, FOB, C&F, or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions for discounts and rebates, including 
early payment discounts, promotional allowances, freight allowances, 
and billback discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
These include inland freight from plant to port of exportation, foreign 
brokerage and handling, other miscellaneous foreign port charges, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs brokerage, U.S. 
customs duty, harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fee, and 
U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to warehouse and 
freight from warehouse to the customer).
    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, direct selling expenses (credit costs, warranty 
expenses), and indirect selling expenses incurred by MIC and COSI in 
the United States. We also deducted from the starting price an amount 
for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. See 
Analysis Memorandum for the Thai Pineapple Canning Industry, dated July 
31, 2002 (TPC Analysis Memorandum).

Malee

    For this POR, the Department found that all of Malee's U.S. sales 
were properly classified as CEP transactions because these sales were 
made in the United States by Malee's affiliated trading company, Icon 
Foods.
    CEP was based on the packed C.I.F. ex-dock U.S. port price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
foreign inland movement expenses, insurance and international freight 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include 
inland freight from plant to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and 
handling, other miscellaneous foreign port charges, international 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs brokerage, U.S. customs duty, 
harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees. Because all of 
Malee's sales were CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
associated with selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses 
incurred by Icon Foods in the United States. We also deducted from the 
starting price an amount for profit in accordance with section 
772(d)(3) of the Act. See Analysis Memorandum for Malee Sampran Public 
Co., Ltd., dated July 31, 2002 (Malee Analysis Memorandum).

Dole

    For this POR, the Department found that all of Dole's U.S. sales 
were properly classified as CEP transactions because these sales were 
made in the United States by Dole Packaged Foods (DPF), a division of 
Dole.
    CEP was based on DPF's price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions from the starting price for discounts 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for 
foreign inland movement expenses, insurance and international freight 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Because all of 
Dole's sales were CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, 
we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses associated 
with selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including 
direct and indirect selling expenses incurred by DPF in the United 
States. We also deducted from the starting price an amount for profit 
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) 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, we determined that, with the exception of Malee 
and Vita, the quantity of foreign like product each respondent sold in 
Thailand did not permit a proper comparison with the sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States because the quantity of each 
company's sales in its home market was less than 5 percent of the 
quantity of its sales to the U.S. market. See section 773(a)(1) of the 
Act. Therefore, for all respondents except Malee and Vita, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) 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 viable third-country market, i.e., France 
for SIFCO, the United Kingdom for SFP, Canada for Dole, Spain for 
Kuiburi and Germany for TPC and TIPCO. With respect to Malee and Vita, 
we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first 
sold for consumption in the home market.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a cost of 
production (COP) investigation of comparison markets for each 
respondent. Because we disregarded sales that failed the cost test in 
the last completed review of TIPCO, SFP, TPC, Malee, Kuiburi, SIFCO, 
and Vita, and in the investigation (i.e., the last completed segment in 
which Dole participated) for Dole, we had reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that sales by these companies of the foreign like product 
under consideration for the determination of NV in this review were 
made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
of the Act.\1\ We conducted the COP analysis as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1999/2000 review was not completed until three months 
after the current review was initiated. Therefore, at the time the 
questionnaires were issued, we initiated the COP investigations 
based on the results of the completed 1998/1999 review and, in the 
case of Dole, based on our final determination in the investigation. 
See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Final Determination not to Revoke Order in Part: Canned 
Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 65 FR 77851 (December 10, 2000). See 
also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Canned 
Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 29553 (June 5, 1995) and Notice 
of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Canned 
Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 60 FR 36775 (July 18, 1995), 
representing our findings in the last completed segment in which 
Dole had participated at the time this review was initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of COP/Fruit Cost Allocation
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each 
respondent, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on 
the sum of the costs of materials, fabrication, selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We relied on the 
submitted COPs except in the specific instances noted below, where the 
submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.
    The Department's long-standing practice, now codified at section 
773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, is to rely on a company's normal books and 
records if such records are in accordance with home country generally 
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and reasonably reflect the costs 
associated with production of the merchandise. In addition, as the 
statute indicates, the

[[Page 51174]]

Department considers whether an accounting methodology, particularly an 
allocation methodology, has been historically used by the company. See 
section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act. In previous segments of this 
proceeding, the Department has determined that joint production costs 
(i.e., pineapple and pineapple processing costs) cannot be reasonably 
allocated to canned pineapple on the basis of weight. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit 
From Thailand, 60 FR 29553, 29561 (June 5, 1995),\2\ and Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned 
Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 63 FR 7392, 7398 (February 13, 1998). 
For instance, cores and shells are used in juice production, while 
trimmed and cored pineapple cylinders are used in CPF production. 
Because these various parts of a pineapple are not interchangeable when 
it comes to CPF versus juice production, it would be unreasonable to 
value all parts of the pineapple equally by using a weight-based 
allocation methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This determination was upheld by the Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit. The Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. United States, 
187 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (finding that the Department's cost 
allocation methodology in the original investigation was reasonable 
and supported by substantial evidence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several respondents that revised their fruit cost allocation 
methodologies during the 1995/1996 POR changed from their historical 
net realizable value (NRV) methodology to weight-based methodologies 
and did not incorporate any measure of the qualitative factor of the 
different parts of the pineapple. As a result, such methodologies, 
although in conformity with Thai GAAP, do not reasonably reflect the 
costs associated with production of CPF. Therefore, for companies whose 
fruit cost allocation methodology is weight-based, we requested that 
they recalculate fruit costs allocated to CPF based on NRV methodology.
    Consistent with prior segments of this proceeding, the NRV 
methodology that we requested respondents to use was based on company-
specific historical amounts for sales and separable costs during the 
five-year period of 1990 through 1994. We initially made this request 
of all companies in this review except Malee. Because, in the past, 
Malee had allocated fruit costs on a basis that reasonably takes into 
account qualitative differences between pineapple parts used in CPF 
versus juice products in its normal accounting records, we did not 
originally require it to recalculate its reported costs using the NRV 
methodology. However, Malee updated its joint cost allocation 
methodology in 2000. Therefore, pursuant to a supplemental 
questionnaire, we obtained Malee's calculation of costs based on the 
Department's historic NRV methodology. For these preliminary results we 
have continued to use Malee's normal accounting methodology.
    We made the following company-specific adjustments to the cost data 
submitted in this review.

SFP

    Based on verification findings, we applied the net realizable value 
ratio to SFP's shared direct labor, fixed overhead , and variable 
overhead for all product models. As a result of these adjustments, we 
revised total cost of manufacturing, general and administrative 
expenses, and interest expense to reflect these changes. See 
Verification of the Home Market and Comparison Market Sales Information 
and the Cost Information in the Response of Siam Food Products Public 
Company Limited in the 2000-01 Administrative Review of Canned 
Pineapple Fruit from Thailand.

SIFCO

    We recalculated SIFCO's pineapple fruit cost allocations for 
specific CPF product models. SIFCO correctly allocated its overall 
fruit costs between solid and juice products using its historic NRV 
ratio. However, SIFCO included a juice product among its solid products 
which slightly distorts the product model-specific allocations. We 
excluded this juice product from the fruit cost allocation for solid 
products. See SIFCO Analysis Memorandum.
    Using information submitted by SIFCO, we also calculated the per-
unit cost of the natural juice packing medium for each of SIFCO's 
juice-packed product models considered in our cost analysis. See SIFCO 
Analysis Memorandum. In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked that 
SIFCO calculate the cost of the natural juice packing medium based on 
NRV and to add this NRV-based cost to its direct material costs. In its 
supplemental response, SIFCO reported separate juice packing medium 
costs which we can tie to each product model, but it did not calculate 
these costs on the basis of NRV. Since we regard natural juice as a 
joint product with CPF, its pineapple fruit input cost must be linked 
to the NRV allocation for juice products. The central purpose of 
establishing the NRV ratio is to divide joint costs between a 
producer's solid and juice products based on NRV. We understand that 
SIFCO, in its normal books and records, ascribes the cost of the 
natural juice packing medium directly to the solid pineapple fruit 
costs for CPF. However, we note that after the specific CPF forms are 
packed in the cans, natural juice packing medium is added as another 
component. Since the natural juice packing medium is part of SIFCO's 
juice production, to apply the Department's NRV methodology correctly, 
the cost of the packing medium is added separately to the total direct 
material costs for CPF and is based on the overall NRV fruit cost 
allocation to SIFCO's juice production. Therefore, in order to account 
for the cost of natural juice used in the production of CPF the 
Department has calculated a separate unit cost for natural juice 
packing medium based on information from SIFCO's response. See SIFCO 
Analysis Memorandum.

Kuiburi

    Based on verification findings, we adjusted Kuiburi's calculation 
of general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expense as a 
ratio of its cost of goods sold. Kuiburi included packing costs in the 
denominator of its original calculation of G&A and interest expenses. 
We recalculated the ratios after adjusting the denominator to deduct 
Kuiburi's packing costs. See Verification of Sales and Cost Information 
Submitted by Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. in the Sixth 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Canned Pineapple 
Fruit from Thailand.

Vita

    Based on verification findings, we adjusted Vita's allocation of 
fruit costs to canned pineapple products. Vita allocated fruit costs to 
canned pineapple fruit as fruit costs to solid products times the 
drained weight of canned pineapple fruit divided by the sum of the 
drained weights of canned pineapple fruit, tropical fruit and pouch 
pack products, i.e., all solid products containing pineapple. We found 
that Vita had erroneously multiplied the ratio to packing medium weight 
instead of total drained weight of the pineapple in the product. By 
adjusting the allocation of pineapple cost to tropical fruit, we also 
necessarily adjusted the cost of pineapple allocable to canned 
pineapple fruit products. See Verification of the Home Market and 
Comparison Market Sales Information and the Cost Information in the 
Response of Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. in the 2000-2001 
Administrative Review of Canned

[[Page 51175]]

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, dated July 31, 2002.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the 
adjusted weighted-average COP for each respondent to the comparison 
market sales 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 revised 
COP 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
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices 
below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' 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 the below-cost sales.
    We found that for certain CPF products, Dole, Kuiburi, TIPCO, SFP, 
SIFCO, Malee, TPC and Vita made comparison-market sales at prices below 
the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. 
Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit the recovery 
of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded 
these sales from our analysis in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We determined price-based NVs for each company as follows. For all 
respondents, we made adjustments for differences in packing in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, 
and we deducted movement expenses consistent with 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, in accordance with 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''). Specifically, where commissions were granted in 
the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward 
adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the amount of the commission 
paid in the U.S. market, or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the 
comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward 
adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-specific 
adjustments are described below.

TIPCO

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted for the following 
movement expenses: brokerage and handling, port charges, stuffing 
expenses, liner expenses and foreign inland freight. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-
country market sales (commissions, credit expenses and bank charges) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (commissions, credit expenses 
and bank charges).

SFP

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United Kingdom. We adjusted for foreign 
movement expenses. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit expenses, bank 
charges, warranties and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit expenses, warranties, and bank charges). We applied 
the commission offset in the manner described above.

Vita

    We based home market prices on the packed, delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Thailand. We adjusted for inland freight. We 
made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for 
home market sales (credit expenses, warranty expenses, commissions, and 
bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses, 
commissions and bank charges).

SIFCO

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB or C&F 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in France. We adjusted for foreign 
movement expenses and international freight. We made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market 
sales (credit expenses, bank charges, and commissions) and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses (credit expenses, bank charges and 
commissions).

TPC

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB or C&F 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted for foreign 
movement expenses and international freight. For comparisons to EP, we 
made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for 
third-country market sales (credit expenses, letter of credit charges, 
and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit 
expenses, letter of credit charges, bank charges, and warranty 
expenses). For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred on third-country market sales.

Kuiburi

    We based third-country market prices on the packed, FOB and CNF 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Spain. We adjusted for foreign 
movement and international freight expenses. We made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for third-country market 
sales (credit expenses and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (credit expenses, bank charges, and commissions).

Malee

    We based home market prices on the packed, delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Thailand. We adjusted for foreign inland 
freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit expenses, warranty expenses, 
advertising expenses and commissions). We also made a level of trade 
(LOT) adjustment where appropriate. See the Level of Trade section, 
below.

Dole

    We based third-country market prices on Dole Foods of Canada 
Ltd.''s (DFC)

[[Page 51176]]

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted for foreign 
movement expenses and international freight. We made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on third-country market 
sales. In addition, because the NV level of trade (LOT) is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP LOT (see the Level of Trade section, 
below), and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
the levels of trade between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we 
made a CEP offset pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For those CPF products for which we could not determine the NV 
based on comparison market sales because there were no contemporaneous 
sales of a comparable product in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared the EP or CEP to CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the 
Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the COM of the product sold 
in the United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, comparison market 
profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated each respondent's CV 
based on the methodology described in the Calculation of COP section of 
this notice, 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 comparison market profit.
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS 
differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred on comparison market sales and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses for comparison to EP transactions in the United States. We 
made no price-to-CV comparisons for Kuiburi, TIPCO, SFP or SIFCO 
because all U.S. sales were compared to contemporaneous sales of a 
comparable product in the ordinary course of trade. For the other 
companies we made the following adjustments:

Vita

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit expenses, warranty expenses, 
commissions, and bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit expenses, commissions and bank charges).

TPC

    For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred for third-country market sales (credit 
expenses, letter of credit charges, and bank charges) and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses (credit expenses, letter of credit charges, 
bank charges, and warranty expenses). For comparisons to CEP, we made 
COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on third-
country market sales.

Malee

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
(credit expenses, warranty expenses, advertising expenses and 
commissions) incurred for home market sales made at the level of trade 
equivalent to the CEP level of trade.

Dole

    We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred on third-country market sales. In addition, because the NV 
level of trade (LOT) is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT 
(see the Level of Trade section, below), and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels of trade between NV 
and CEP affects price comparability, we made a CEP offset pursuant to 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    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 LOT as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when 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 exporter to 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 LOT than EP or CEP 
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 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 under 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).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from each respondent about the marketing stage involved in 
the reported U.S. and comparison market sales, including a description 
of the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel 
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 under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that, 
if claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the 
seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities 
of the seller should be dissimilar.
    In this review, all respondents except Malee and Dole claimed that 
all of their sales involved identical selling functions, irrespective 
of channel of distribution or market. We examined these selling 
functions for Vita, SIFCO, SFP, TIPCO, TPC, and Kuiburi, and found that 
sales activities were limited to negotiating sales prices, processing 
of purchase orders/contracts, invoicing, and collecting payment. There 
was little or no strategic and economic planning, advertising or sales 
promotion, technical services, technical assistance, or after-sale 
service performed in either market by the respondents. Therefore, for 
all respondents except Malee and Dole, we have preliminarily found that 
there is an identical LOT in the U.S. and relevant comparison market, 
and no level-of-trade adjustment is required for comparison of U.S. 
sales to comparison market sales.

Malee

    Malee reported that all of its sales made to the United States were 
to distributors and involved minimal selling functions on the part of 
Malee. Malee reported two different channels of distribution for its 
sales in the home market: (1) Sales through an affiliated

[[Page 51177]]

reseller, Malee Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Malee Enterprise) (formerly Malee 
Supply (1994) Co. Ltd.), which are made at a more advanced marketing 
stage than the factory-direct sales, and (2) factory-direct sales 
involving minimal selling functions and which are at a marketing stage 
identical to that of the CEP transactions after deductions.
    In the home market, Malee reported numerous selling functions 
undertaken by Malee Enterprise for its resales to small wholesalers, 
retailers and end-users. In addition to maintaining inventory, Malee 
Enterprise also handled all advertising during the POR. The advertising 
was directed at the ultimate consumer. Malee also reported that Malee 
Enterprise replaces damaged or defective merchandise and, as necessary, 
breaks down packed cases into smaller lot sizes for many sales. Malee 
made direct sales to hotels, restaurants and industrial users. Malee 
claimed that its only selling function on direct sales was delivery of 
the product to the customer.
    Our examination of the selling activities, selling expenses, and 
customer categories involved in these two channels of distribution 
indicates that they constitute separate levels of trade, and that the 
direct sales are made at the same level as Malee's U.S. sales. Where 
possible, we compared sales at Malee's U.S. LOT to sales at the 
identical home market LOT. If no match was available at the same LOT, 
we compared sales at Malee's U.S. LOT to Malee's sales through Malee 
Enterprise at the more advanced LOT.
    To determine whether a LOT adjustment was warranted, we examined 
the prices of comparable product categories, net of all adjustments, 
between sales at the two home market LOTs we had designated. We found a 
pattern of consistent price differences between sales at these LOTs. In 
making the LOT adjustment, we calculated the difference in weighted-
average prices between the two different home market LOTs. Where U.S. 
sales were compared to home market sales at a different LOT, we reduced 
the home market price by the amount of this calculated LOT difference.

Dole

    Dole reported six specific customer categories and one channel of 
distribution (sales through an affiliated reseller) for its comparison 
market and seven specific customer categories and one channel of 
distribution (sales through an affiliated reseller) for its U.S. sales. 
In its response, Dole claims that all of its sales to unaffiliated 
comparison market customers (i.e., the six customer categories) are at 
the same LOT because these sales are made through the same channel of 
distribution and involve the same selling functions.
    Dole had only CEP sales in the U.S. market. Dole reported that its 
CEP sales were made through a single channel of distribution (i.e., 
sales through its U.S. affiliate, Dole Packaged Foods (DPF)), which we 
have treated as one LOT because there is no apparent difference in the 
selling functions performed by DPF for the different customers. After 
making the appropriate deductions under section 772(d) of the Act for 
these CEP sales, we found that the remaining expenses associated with 
selling activities performed by Dole are limited to expenses related to 
the arrangement of freight and delivery to the port of export that are 
reflected in the CEP price. In contrast, the normal value prices 
include a number of selling expenses attributable to selling activities 
performed by DFC in the comparison market, such as inventory 
maintenance, warehousing, delivery, order processing, advertising, 
rebate and promotional programs, warranties, and market research. 
Accordingly, we concluded that CEP is at a different LOT from the NV 
LOT, i.e., the CEP sales are less remote from the factory than are the 
NV sales.
    Having determined that the comparison market sales were made at a 
level more remote from the cannery than the CEP transactions, we then 
examined whether a LOT adjustment or CEP offset may be appropriate. In 
this case, Dole only sold at one LOT in the comparison market; 
therefore, there is no information available to determine a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
the comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, in 
accordance with the Department's normal methodology as described above. 
See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000). Further, we do not 
have information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based 
on respondent's sales of other products, and there are no other 
respondents or other record information on which such an analysis could 
be based. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an 
appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the 
comparison market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the 
LOT of the CEP transactions, we made a CEP offset adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. This offset is equal 
to the amount of indirect expenses incurred in the comparison market 
not exceeding the amount of indirect selling expenses deducted from the 
U.S. price in accordance with 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Intent To Revoke in Part

    On July 31, 2001, SFP requested that ``the Department revoke the 
antidumping order in part as regards SFP based on the absence of 
dumping pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).'' SFP submitted, along with 
its revocation request, a certification stating that: (1) The company 
sold subject merchandise at not less than normal value during the POR, 
and that in the future it would not sell such merchandise at less than 
normal value (see 19 CFR 351.222 (e)(1)(i)); (2) the company has sold 
the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities 
during each of the past three years (see 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii)); and 
(3) the company agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as 
long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the 
Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, 
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B), and as referenced at 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(iii)).
    Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final 
results of the two preceding reviews (see Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination Not To 
Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 65 FR 77851 
(December 13, 2000) and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Recission of Administrative Review in Part: 
Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 66 FR 52744, (October 17, 2001)), 
SFP has preliminarily demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at 
not less than normal value. Furthermore, SFP's aggregate sales to the 
United States have been made in commercial quantities during the last 
three segments of this proceeding. See the July 31, 2002 Memorandum to 
Bernard Carreau: Preliminary Determination to Revoke in Part the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand. 
Interested parties are invited to comment in their case briefs on all 
of the requirements that must be met by SFP under section 351.222 of 
the Department's regulations in order to qualify for revocation from 
the antidumping duty order. Based on the above facts and absent any 
evidence to the contrary, the Department preliminarily determines that 
the continued application of the order to SFP is not otherwise 
necessary to offset

[[Page 51178]]

dumping. Therefore, if these preliminary findings are affirmed in our 
final results, we intend to revoke the order with respect to 
merchandise produced and exported by SFP. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(f), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any 
such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after July 1, 2001, and will instruct Customs to refund any cash 
deposit.

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 dates 
of the U.S. sales 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Food Products Company Ltd. (SFP).......................        0.09
Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole)..............................        0.63
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd. (TIPCO).............        0.44
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd. (Kuiburi)....................        0.39
Thai Pineapple Canning Industry (TPC).......................        2.43
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd. (SIFCO)..................        0.64
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co. Ltd. (Vita)....................        1.94
Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee)......................        0.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to 
comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with each 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 a 
diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a 
hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or 
the first workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of 
the final results of this administrative review, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or 
hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice.

Assessment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Upon 
completion of this review, the Department will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all entries of subject 
merchandise by that importer. We have calculated each importer's duty 
assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
examined sales. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, the 
importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made 
during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
CPF from Thailand 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 rate for companies listed above will be 
the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the 
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 less than fair value (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 or the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 24.64 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.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during 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. 02-19995 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P