[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76718-76720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31479]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-813]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand. 
This review covers eight producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2000, through June 
30, 2001. Based on our analysis of the comments received, these final 
results differ from the preliminary results. The final results are 
listed below in the Final Results of Review section. Furthermore, the 
preliminary results for one exporter/producer, Siam Food Products 
Public Co. Ltd. (SFP), are adopted in our final results of this 
administrative review; therefore, we will revoke the antidumping duty 
order with respect to SFP, based on three consecutive review periods of 
sales at not less than normal value. See Revocation of the Order (in 
Part) section of this notice. Consistent with the preliminary results, 
we are rescinding the review with respect to one exporter/producer, 
Prachuab Fruit Canning Company (Praft) based on our determination that 
this company had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2002.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Background

    This review covers the following producers/exporters of merchandise 
subject to the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from 
Thailand: Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita), Kuiburi Fruit 
Canning Co., Ltd. (Kuiburi), Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee), 
Siam Food Products Public Co., Ltd. (SFP), The Thai Pineapple Public 
Co., Ltd. (TIPCO), Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. (TPC), 
Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole 
Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, Dole), and Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co., 
Ltd. (SIFCO).
    On August 7, 2002, the Department published the preliminary results 
of this review and invited interested parties to comment on those 
results. See Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination to 
Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 67 FR 51171 
(Preliminary Results). On September 6, 2002, we received case briefs 
from Dole, TPC, and the petitioners.\1\ On September 13, 2002, we 
received rebuttal briefs from Dole, Malee, and the petitioners. TIPCO 
also submitted a rebuttal brief on September 25, 2002, but it was 
rejected by the Department as an untimely submission.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this case are Maui Pineapple Company and 
the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union.
    \2\ See Letter to Anurat Tiamtan from Gary Taverman, Director, 
Office 5, Import Administration (September 30, 2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 6, 2002, Malee and SFP requested a public hearing, but 
withdrew their requests on September 19, 2002. As a result, no public 
hearing was held.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order 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

[[Page 76719]]

customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

Recission

    On September 17, 2001, in response to the Department's 
questionnaire, Praft stated that it made no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. We received no 
comments regarding our preliminary decision to rescind the review with 
respect to Praft and, consistent with the preliminary results, we are 
rescinding the review with respect to Praft.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand'' from Bernard T. 
Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Group II, Import 
Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, dated December 5, 2002 (Decision Memorandum), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice.
    A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, is 
attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Except for the calculations for Dole and Malee, we calculated 
export price and normal value based on the same methodology used in the 
preliminary results. Changes to the export price calculation for Dole 
and the indirect selling expenses for Malee are detailed in their 
respective analysis memoranda.

Cost of Production

    Except for Malee, we calculated the cost of production (COP) for 
the merchandise based on the same methodology used in the preliminary 
results. Changes to the general and administrative expense ratio for 
Malee are detailed in the Decision Memorandum.

Revocation of the Order (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 normal value. See 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B), and as referenced at 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(iii). No 
comments were filed by any party on our preliminary decision to revoke 
the order with respect to SFP.
    Based on the final results of 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 demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than 
normal value.
    Furthermore, the Department has found that SFP's aggregate sales to 
the United States have been made in commercial quantities during the 
last three segments of this proceeding. See Memorandum to Bernard 
Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Group II, Import Administration 
from David Layton, Import Compliance Specialist, Office 5, Import 
Administration: ``Preliminary Determination to Revoke in Part the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand'' dated 
July 31, 2002, on file in the CRU.
    Based on the above facts, the Department determines that the 
continued application of the antidumping duty order is not necessary to 
offset dumping by SFP. SFP has also agreed in writing to its immediate 
reinstatement in the order, as long as any producer or exporter is 
subject to the order, should the Department conclude that SFP, 
subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than 
normal value. Therefore, we will 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. The Department will further instruct the 
Customs Service to refund with interest any cash deposit on entries 
made after June 30, 2001.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2000, 
through June 30, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole).............................         0.27
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).....................         0.74
Siam Food Products Public Co., Ltd. (SFP)..................         0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject 
merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where 
the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will 
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on that 
importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service 
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a) 
of the Act: (1) for the

[[Page 76720]]

companies named above (with the exception of SFP, for whom we are 
revoking the order), the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed 
above, except where the margins are zero or de minimis no cash deposit 
will be required, (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or 
exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment 
of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in 
which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this 
proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that 
established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final 
results of review or in the most recent segment of the proceeding in 
which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter 
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any 
previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 
24.64 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective 
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 5, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO DOLE
Comment 1: Royalty Payments
Comment 2: Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 3: Surrogate Canadian-dollar Interest Rate
Comment 4: Clerical Error Allegation
II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO MALEE
Comment 5: Indirect Selling Expense Ratio
Comment 6: Net Realizable Value Calculation
Comment 7: General and Administrative Expenses
III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TIPCO
Comment 8: Calculation of G & A Expenses
Comment 9: Income Offsets
Comment 10: Packing Overhead
IV. JOINT ISSUE: DOLE, MALEE, & TIPCO
Comment 11: Fruit Cost Allocation
V. ISSUE SPECIFIC TO TPC
Comment 12: Affiliation
[FR Doc. 02-31479 Filed 12-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S