[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6878-6880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-337-803]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Final 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: On August 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its third administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. The 
review covers sixteen producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. 
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. 
Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the 
Final Results of Review section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 11, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Schepker or Constance Handley, 
at (202) 482-1784 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:

Background

    On August 7, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the third administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. See 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, 67 FR 51182 (August 7, 2002) (Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On 
October 3, 2002, we received case briefs from respondents Cultivadora 
de Salmones Linao Ltda. and Salmones Tecmar S.A. (collectively, Linao 
and Tecmar)\1\, Pesquera Eicosal Ltda., (Eicosal), Los Fiordos, Ltda. 
(Los Fiordos), Marine Harvest (Chile) S.A., (Marine Harvest), Salmones 
Mainstream S.A. (Mainstream), Salmones Pacifico Sur S.A. (Pacifico 
Sur), Pesca Chile S.A. (Pesca Chile), and L.R. Enterprises.\2\ On 
October 8, 2002, L.R. Enterprises filed an unsolicited, revised case 
brief with regard to Mainstream because its October 3 submission on 
Mainstream contained numerous inadvertent errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Linao and Tecmar were collapsed in the third administrative 
review. See Preliminary Results at 51186.
    \2\ L.R. Enterprises is a domestic producer of subject 
merchandise with operations in Lubec, Maine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 10, 2002, we received rebuttal briefs from respondents 
Cultivos Marinos Chiloe, Ltda. (Cultivos Marinos), Eicosal, Linao and 
Tecmar, Mainstream, Marine Harvest, Pacifico Sur and L.R. Enterprises.
    On October 15, 2002, the Department sent L.R. Enterprises a letter 
regarding its case brief on Mainstream, requiring the redaction of new 
factual information contained in the October 3 and 8 versions. On 
October 16, 2002, L.R. Enterprises submitted redacted versions of the 
October 3 and 8 versions of its case brief on Mainstream. At the 
hearing on October 17, 2002, the Department informed L.R. Enterprises 
that the versions submitted on October 16 still contained information 
that should have been redacted. The Department instructed L.R. 
Enterprises to re-submit its case brief on Mainstream with all of the 
appropriate information redacted by the close of business on October 
18, 2002. L.R. Enterprises re-submitted the brief.
    On October 22, 2002, Mainstream submitted a letter to the 
Department stating that the re-submitted, revised version filed by L.R. 
Enterprises on October 18 continued to contain new factual information 
that should have been redacted. Mainstream requested that, given that 
L.R. Enterprise's fourth attempt still contained new factual 
information, the Department reject as untimely filed L.R. Enterprise's 
October 18, 2002, submission. Mainstream also provided the Department 
with its own version of what the correctly redacted case brief should 
look like. On October 24, 2002, L.R. Enterprises filed a response to 
Mainstream's October 22, 2002, letter, in which it argued that its 
October 18 version was correctly redacted and that there was no longer 
any new factual information contained in the brief. L.R. Enterprises 
also included in its October 24 filing a revised version of the case 
brief, removing only the reference to new information contained in 
Exhibit 1. On October 25, 2002, the Department asked L.R. Enterprises 
to resubmit its case brief on Mainstream in compliance with the 
Department's specific redaction instructions contained within that 
letter. On October 28, 2002, L.R. Enterprises complied with the 
Department's request and submitted the revised version of its case 
brief on Mainstream.

Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

    Prior to the publication of the preliminary results in this review, 
respondent Salmones Unimarc S.A. (Salmones Unimarc) certified to the 
Department that it had not shipped subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. As described in the Preliminary Results, U.S. 
import

[[Page 6879]]

statistics confirmed that the company had not shipped subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to this 
company. No new information has come to the Department's attention in 
this regard since the publication of the preliminary results. 
Accordingly, we are rescinding the review with respect to Salmones 
Unimarc.

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 review is classifiable under item 
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 subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is 
dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
(Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list 
of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this 
notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in Room B-099 of the main 
Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at 
ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Determination to Revoke Order in Part

    In accordance with section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's 
regulations, we have determined to revoke the antidumping duty order as 
to Cultivos Marinos, Mainstream, Marine Harvest and Pacifico Sur. These 
companies have sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities at 
prices not below their respective normal values for three consecutive 
annual reviews. Moreover, our analysis of market conditions and other 
factors does not indicate that the order is otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping with respect to these companies. See Revocation 
Recommendation in the Decision Memorandum.
    We have also determined to not revoke the order as to Eicosal and 
Linao and Tecmar. The Stolt Sea Farm Ltda. acquisition of Eicosal and 
subsequent affiliation and collapsing issues between Eicosal and Ocean 
Horizons Chile S.A.\3\ lead the Department to conclude that continued 
imposition of the order is necessary to offset dumping by Eicosal. See 
Comment 8 of the Decision Memorandum. With regard to Linao and Tecmar, 
for the reasons outlined in a proprietary memo,\4\ the Department has 
determined that the order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping by 
Linao and Tecmar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On July 3, 2001, Eicosal was fully acquired by Stolt, the 
parent company of Ocean Horizons.
    \4\ See Final Determination to Revoke in Part the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile for Marine Harvest 
and Not to Revoke for Linao and Tecmar memorandum to Bernard 
Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, from Daniel O[acute] Brien and 
Salim Bhabhrawala, Case Analysts, dated February 3, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-Average
                Exporter/Manufacturer                        Margin
                                                       [chyph]Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andes................................................  0.16 (de minimis)
Cultivos Marinos.....................................  0.10 (de minimis)
Eicosal..............................................  0.44 (de minimis)
Friosur..............................................  0.18 (de minimis)
Invertec.............................................               0.00
Linao and Tecmar.....................................  0.29 (de minimis)
Los Fiordos..........................................  0.04 (de minimis)
Mainstream...........................................  0.05 (de minimis)
Marine Harvest.......................................  0.13 (de minimis)
Multiexport..........................................               0.00
Ocean Horizons.......................................  0.07 (de minimis)
Pacifico Sur.........................................               0.00
Patagonia............................................  0.01 (de minimis)
Pesca Chile..........................................  0.11 (de minimis)
Robinson Crusoe......................................  0.06 (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) (2002), we have calculated an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject 
to this review. We will direct the Customs Service to assess such rates 
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each 
of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of these final 
results of review.

Cash Deposits

    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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) for all exporters/
manufacturers covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate listed above, except where the margin is zero or de minimis, no 
cash deposit will be required; (2) for merchandise exported by 
producers 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 producer 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 producer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these 
final results of review or in the most recent final results in which 
that producer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the 
producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of 
this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 4.57 percent, the ``All 
Others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 
These deposit requirements shall remain in

[[Page 6880]]

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 or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 3, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

Comment 1: Regulatory requirements for revocation
Comment 2: European Commission's initiation of a dumping investigation 
of fresh and frozen Atlantic salmon from Chile
Comment 3: Accuracy and propriety of the Department's revocation 
analysis
Comment 4: Production capacity
Comment 5: The use of fourth review data in the final results of the 
third review
Comment 6: Whether Eicosal's post-POI shipments were made in commercial 
quantities
Comment 7: Eicosal's sales to the United States
Comment 8: Stolt Sea Farm Ltda.'s (Stolt) post-POR acquisition of 
Eicosal
Comment 9: Pacifico Sur's U.S. prices and profitability
Comment 10: Whether the Department should consider Marine Harvest 
eligible for revocation
Comment 11: Whether the Department should find that Linao and Tecmar 
are a ``new entity'' for the purposes of its revocation analysis
Comment 12: Whether the Department should have placed a revocation 
analysis for Linao and Tecmar on the record of this review
Comment 13: Whether the Department should revise the monetary 
correction adjustment and financial expense ratio for Eicosal
Comment 14: Marine Harvest's CEP profit calculation
Comment 15: Marine Harvest's feed costs
Comment 16: Ministerial error contained in Linao's and Tecmar's 
preliminary results margin calculation program
Comment 17: Linao's and Tecmar's cash deposit rate
Comment 18: Whether Department should correct data errors made by Los 
Fiordos for the final results
[FR Doc. 03-3405 Filed 2-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S