[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10694-10703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review 
and Preliminary Results of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of fourth 
new shipper review and preliminary results of third antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is concurrently conducting the 
fourth new shipper review and third administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China covering the period February 1, 2001, through January 
31, 2002. The new shipper review covers three exporters. We have 
preliminarily determined that one of those exporters has not made sales 
at less than normal value. For the other two exporters, we have 
preliminarily determined that one of them failed to demonstrate that 
its reported sale was a bona fide sale, while the other failed to 
demonstrate its entitlement to a new shipper review. Thus, we are 
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to them. The 
administrative review covers four exporters. We have preliminarily 
determined that sales have been made below normal value with respect to 
all of these exporters. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of this review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service 
to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

[[Page 10695]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Davina Hashmi, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0984, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on 
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') (64 FR 8308).
    On February 1, 2002, the Department published a notice advising of 
the opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC (67 FR 4945). On 
February 28, 2002, the Department received timely requests from Gerber 
Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. (``Gerber'') and Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) 
Co., Ltd. (``Green Fresh'') for an administrative review pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.213(b).
    On February 27 and 28, 2002, the Department received timely 
requests from Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. (``Guangxi 
Yulin''), Shenzhen Qunxingyuan Trading Co., Ltd. (``Shenzhen 
Qunxingyuan''), and Zhangzhou Jingxiang Foods Co., Ltd. (``Zhangzhou 
Jingxiang'') for a new shipper review in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.214(c).
    On February 28, 2002, the petitioner \1\ requested an 
administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) of 7 companies \2\ 
which it claimed were producers and/or exporters of the subject 
merchandise. Two of these seven companies also requested a review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom 
Trade which includes the American Mushroom Institute and the 
following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc., Modern Mushroom 
Farms, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mount Laurel Canning Corp., 
Mushrooms Canning Company, Southwood Farms, Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., 
and United Canning Corp.
    \2\ The petitioner's request included the following companies: 
(1) China Processed Food Import & Export Company (``China 
Processed''), (2) Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation 
(``Shantou Hongda''); (3) Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. 
(``Shenxian Dongxing''); (4) Gerber; (5) Green Fresh; (6) Raoping 
Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. (``Raoping Xingyu''); and (7) Compania 
Envasadora Del Atlantico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From March 6 through 28, 2002, Guangxi Yulin, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, 
and Zhangzhou Jingxiang all agreed to waive the time limits applicable 
to the new shipper review and to permit the Department to conduct the 
new shipper review concurrently with the administrative review.
    On March 20, 2002, the Department initiated an administrative 
review covering the companies listed in the petitioner's February 28, 
2002, request. (See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 14696, 14698 (March 27, 2002).)
    On March 29, 2002, the Department initiated a new shipper review of 
Guangxi Yulin, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang. (See 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 67 FR 16088 (April 
4, 2002).)
    On April 16, 2002, we issued a questionnaire to each PRC company 
listed in the above-referenced initiation notices.
    On May 2, 2002, the Department provided the parties an opportunity 
to submit publicly available information (``PAI'') for consideration in 
these preliminary results.
    On May 21, 2002, the respondent Compania Envasadora del Atlantico 
indicated that it had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the period of review (``POR'').
    From May 23 through June 7, 2002, China Processed, Gerber, Green 
Fresh, Shantou Hongda, Shenxian Dongxing, Guangxi Yulin, Shenzhen 
Qunxingyuan, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang submitted their responses to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire.
    On June 11, 2002, the petitioner requested an extension until July 
9, 2002, to withdraw any request for review of companies listed in its 
February 28, 2002, communication, which the Department granted on June 
21, 2002.
    From June 14 through August 23, 2002, the petitioner submitted 
comments on the questionnaire responses provided by Gerber, Green 
Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenzhen Qunxingyuan.
    From June 28 through July 15, 2002, the Department issued China 
Processed, Gerber, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenzhen Qunxingyuan a 
supplemental questionnaire.
    On July 9, 2002, the petitioner withdrew its request for an 
administrative review of China Processed, Compania Envasadora del 
Atlantico, and Raoping Xingyu. On July 10, 2002, the petitioner 
requested an extension of time until August 9, 2002, to submit factual 
information in this case, which the Department granted on July 12, 
2002.
    From July 23 through July 29, 2002, the Department issued Green 
Fresh, Shantou Hongda, Shenxian Dongxing, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang a 
supplemental questionnaire.
    From July 23, through August 26, 2002, the respondents submitted 
their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.
    On August 16, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no 
later than February 28, 2003 (67 FR 53565).
    On August 20, 2002, the Department rescinded the administrative 
review with respect to China Processed, Compania Envasadora del 
Atlantico, and Raoping Xingyu. (See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 53914 (August 20, 2002).)
    From August 20 through August 23, 2002, the Department issued 
Gerber, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang a second 
supplemental questionnaire.
    From September 3 through 6, 2002, the Department issued 
verification outlines to Guangxi Yulin, Shenxian Dongxing, Shenzhen 
Qunxingyuan, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang.
    From September 4 through 11, 2002, Gerber, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, 
and Zhangzhou Jingxiang submitted their responses to the Department's 
second supplemental questionnaire.
    On September 6, 2002, Gerber, Green Fresh, Zhangzhou Jingxiang, and 
the petitioner submitted PAI for use in valuing the factors of 
production.
    The Department conducted verification of the responses of Guangxi 
Yulin, Shenxian Dongxing, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang 
during the period September 16, through 25, 2002. From October 21 
through November 8, 2002, the Department issued verification reports 
for these companies.
    On November 12, 2002, the Department issued Shantou Hongda a second 
supplemental questionnaire and received this company's response on 
November 26, 2002.
    On November 22, 2002, the Department issued Gerber a third 
supplemental questionnaire and Green Fresh a second supplemental 
questionnaire. Both companies submitted their responses on December 23, 
2002.
    From December 16, 2002, through January 2, 2003, the Department 
issued verification outlines to Gerber, Green Fresh, and Shantou 
Hongda.

[[Page 10696]]

    On February 5, 2003, Gerber and Green Fresh submitted comments on 
the petitioner's September 6, 2002, PAI submission and additional PAI. 
This PAI submission was untimely filed for consideration in the 
preliminary results. However, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), we 
will consider the information contained in this submission in the final 
results.
    The Department conducted verification of the responses of Gerber, 
Green Fresh, and Shantou Hongda during the period January 9, through 
25, 2003. From February 12 through 14, 2003, the Department issued the 
verification reports for these companies.
    In February 2003, the petitioner submitted pre-preliminary results 
comments on the data provided by all respondents in these reviews.

Scope of Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus 
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Preserved mushrooms'' refer to 
mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, 
and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and 
heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars 
in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, 
brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported 
whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope 
of this order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which are presalted and packed 
in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further 
processing.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All 
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and 
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched 
mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) 
``marinated,'' ``acidified'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that 
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing 
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the 
Antidumping Duty Order. See ``Recommendation Memorandum--Final 
Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain 
Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic 
of China,'' dated June 19, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under 
subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 
2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States \4\ (``HTS''). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Prior to January 1, 2002, the HTS subheadings were as 
follows: 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 
2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Reviews

    The period of reviews (``POR'') is February 1, 2001, through 
January 31, 2002.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by each respondent. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and 
exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial 
records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification 
report for each company. (For further discussion, see October 21, 2002, 
Verification Report for Zhangzhou Jingxiang in the Fourth Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review (``Zhangzhou Jingxiang Verification Report''); 
October 24, 2002, Verification Report for Shenxian Dongxing in the 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (``Shenxian Dongxing 
Verification Report''); the November 8, 2002, Verification Reports for 
Guangxi Yulin and Shenzhen Qunxingyuan in the Fourth Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review (``Guangxi Yulin Verification Report'' and 
``Shenzhen Qunxingyuan Verification Report''); the February 12, 2003, 
Verification Reports for Gerber and Green Fresh in the Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (``Gerber Verification Report'' 
and ``Green Fresh Verification Report''); and the February 14, 2003, 
Verification Report for Shantou Hongda in the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review (``Shantou Hongda Verification Report'').)

Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review

    For the reasons stated below, we are preliminarily rescinding, in 
part, the new shipper review with respect to Zhangzhou Jingxiang and 
Shenzhen Qunxingyuan.
    Specifically, we are preliminarily rescinding the new shipper 
review with respect to Zhangzhou Jingxiang because it failed to provide 
us with the necessary documentation for determining which entity or 
entities own it. Furthermore, Zhangzhou Jingxiang was unable to explain 
whether or not its owner was affiliated with any PRC exporters or 
producers of the subject merchandise. Specifically, in its Section A 
response, Zhangzhou Jingxiang stated that it is an entity wholly owned 
by a single U.S. citizen. However, our examination at verification of 
Zhangzhou Jingxiang's bank account records indicated that the entire 
investment of Zhangzhou Jingxiang's capital was provided to it by two 
U.S. importers of its merchandise, neither of which was the U.S. 
citizen which Zhangzhou Jingxiang claimed was its owner. Although 
Zhangzhou Jingxiang continued to maintain at verification that it was 
not owned by either U.S. importer, it could not substantiate with 
certainty which entity(ies) owned it and the affiliations of that 
entity(ies). Moreover, Zhangzhou Jingxiang was unable to provide 
documentation from either U.S. importer which showed each entity's 
ownership holdings, despite the Department's request for this 
information. (See Zhangzhou Jingxiang Verification Report at 3-5.)
    In order to qualify for a new shipper review under 19 CFR 351.214, 
a company must certify, among other things, that since the 
investigation was initiated, it has never been affiliated with any 
exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period of investigation, including those not 
individually examined during the investigation. (See 19 CFR 
351.214(2)(iii)(A).) Given that Zhangzhou Jingxiang could not 
substantiate its affiliations and, thus, its certification (which it 
provided prior to the initiation of the new shipper review) at 
verification, it is not entitled to a new shipper review. Therefore, we 
are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Zhangzhou 
Jingxiang.
    In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative 
review with respect to Shenzhen Qunxingyuan because we find that it did 
not have a bona fide sale during the POR, as required by 19 CFR 
351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C), based on the totality of the facts on the record. 
Specifically, we find that the price of its single reported sale was 
aberrationally high relative to the average unit value of all 
comparable canned mushroom imports from the PRC during the POR and 
during the month in which the sale was made. Moreover, we find that the 
price for the can size included in this sale was not within the 
reasonable range of prices charged by other PRC exporters under

[[Page 10697]]

review for the comparable goods sold during the POR.
    We also find that the quantity of the sale was abnormally low when 
compared to the average size of shipments of comparable goods during 
the month in which the sale was made and to the range of shipment sizes 
of other PRC exporters under review for comparable merchandise. In 
addition, because Shenzhen Qunxingyuan had no other sales of any 
merchandise, subject or non-subject, during or after the POR and 
therefore, apparently, had no commercial income during this period, we 
believe the legitimacy of this company as a viable commercial entity is 
called into question. In addition, the conflicting information we 
obtained regarding the address of its U.S. customer and other 
information regarding another respondent relating to this customer's 
reported address, leads us to question the legitimacy of the U.S. 
customer, and as a result, the bona fides of the reported sale itself. 
For all of these reasons, the Department preliminarily finds Shenzhen 
Qunxingyuan's sole U.S. sale during the POR was not a bona fide 
commercial transaction. (See February 28, 2003, memorandum from Office 
Director to the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for further 
discussion.)

Relationship Between Two Respondents

    Two respondents in this review, Gerber and Green Fresh, revealed to 
the Department on the record that they had a business relationship 
during the POR. The Department finds that this relationship resulted in 
evasion of antidumping cash deposits during the POR. (See February 28, 
2003, memorandum from Office Director to the Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for further discussion.)
    As stated in Tung Mung Development v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 
2d 1333 (CIT August 22, 2002), appeal entered (``Tung Mung v. United 
States''), the Department has a duty to apply its law in a manner as to 
prevent the evasion of antidumping duties: ``The ITA has been vested 
with authority to administer the antidumping laws in accordance with 
the legislative intent. To this end, the ITA has a certain amount of 
discretion [to act] * * * with the purpose in mind of preventing the 
intentional evasion or circumvention of the antidumping duty law. 
Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 12 C.I.T. 1025, 1046, 700 F. 
Supp. 538, 555 (1988), aff'd 898 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990).'' The 
Department has preliminarily calculated an individual margin for each 
of these respondents based on the data reported by each of them, 
adjusted to reflect verification findings, which it will also use to 
calculate importer-specific assessment rates. However, because the 
Department is concerned that antidumping duty cash deposits may be 
evaded again in subsequent PORs, as they were in this POR, the 
Department has determined it appropriate to assign to each of these 
respondents for future cash deposit purposes the higher of the rates 
calculated for each of them in this review.

Facts Available

    For the reasons stated below, we have preliminarily applied partial 
adverse facts available to Shenxian Dongxing.
    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested (subject to sections 782(c)(1) and 782(e) of the Act), 
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or 
provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall 
use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination.
    In this review, the Department issued Shenxian Dongxing a 
supplemental questionnaire, requesting it to address discrepancies in 
data provided in its original questionnaire response and to provide 
secondary worksheets which demonstrated how it derived the numerical 
data contained in its response. As a result of conducting verification 
of the data submitted by Shenxian Dongxing, we discovered at 
verification that Shenxian Dongxing provided the Department with 
erroneous quantity (i.e., drained weight and packed weight) data for 
all of its U.S. sales during the POR which were reported in its U.S. 
sales listing contained in its Section C response. At verification, 
Shenxian Dongxing acknowledged these errors and explained that they 
were data processing errors. (See Shenxian Dongxing Verification Report 
at 3, and 15 through 17.)
    The sales and packed quantity figures reported for each U.S. sale 
are derived from data contained in the sales invoice (i.e., number of 
cartons, number of cans, and per-unit drained weight) and packing list 
(e.g., net per-unit weight). The sales quantity data is critical for 
purposes of calculating the weighted-average dumping margin, and the 
packed weight quantity is important for purposes of calculating the 
respondent's U.S. movement expenses (which are deducted from the U.S. 
price for margin calculation purposes). While the erroneous quantity 
figures at issue cannot be fixed using accurate, verified information 
on the record, the U.S. gross unit price data reported by this 
respondent is reliable and can be used for purposes of calculating 
sales-specific margins for the respondent. Furthermore, the errors at 
issue are isolated in nature and not so egregious that the Department 
is unable to use the rest of Shenxian Dongxing's reported U.S. sales 
data, after adjustments per verification findings, for purposes of 
calculating a margin. However, to do so, we must resort to facts 
available because we are unable to calculate a weighted-average margin 
by using this data. We therefore find that, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the use of facts available is warranted in 
this segment of the proceeding with respect to Shenxian Dongxing.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that 
party as facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act further 
provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the 
Department may employ adverse inferences against an interested party if 
that party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with requests for information. See also ``Statement of 
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 
(1994) (``SAA''). As stated above, Shenxian Dongxing had the ability to 
report accurate quantity information for each of its U.S. sales 
reported in its response, and it admitted that it failed to do so. We 
therefore find that Shenxian Dongxing failed to cooperate to the best 
of its ability in this segment of the proceeding. As a result, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act, we have made an adverse inference with 
respect to Shenxian Dongxing.
    In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with Department 
practice (see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Fifth 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the 
Seventh New Shipper Review, 68 FR 1031, 1033 (January 8, 2003)), as 
adverse facts available, we have assigned to exports of the subject 
merchandise by Shenxian Dongxing a rate of 68.45 percent, which is the 
highest rate calculated for any of its U.S. sales transactions. The 
Department's

[[Page 10698]]

practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources 
of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse 
``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce a 
respondent to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' (See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932, (February 23, 1998). We believe that the rate 
assigned is appropriate in this regard. Furthermore, we are not 
applying total adverse facts available because, pursuant to section 
782(e) of the Act, we believe that we may derive from the record 
sufficient information to calculate an appropriate adverse facts 
available margin. Thus, we are applying as partial adverse facts 
available, a rate of 68.45 percent to Shenxian Dongxing.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate). One respondent 
in these reviews, Gerber, is wholly owned by persons located outside 
the PRC. Thus, for Gerber, because we have no evidence indicating that 
it is under the control of the PRC government, a separate rates 
analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from 
government control. (See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper 
Review, 66 FR 44331 (August 23, 2001), which cites to Brake Rotors from 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of the Fifth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001) 
(where the respondent was wholly owned by a U.S. registered company); 
Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001), 
which cites to Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper 
Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001) (where the respondent was 
wholly owned by a company located in Hong Kong); Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 
1999) (where the respondent was wholly owned by persons located in Hong 
Kong).)
    Three respondents, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, and Shenxian 
Dongxing are joint ventures of PRC entities. The other respondent, 
Shantou Hongda, is owned by all of the people. Thus, a separate-rates 
analysis is necessary to determine whether each of these four exporters 
is independent from government control. (See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the 
People's Republic of China (``Bicycles''), 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 
1996).) To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its 
export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
and amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). Under the separate-rates criteria, 
the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the 
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.

1. De Jure Control

    Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Shantou Hongda, and Shenxian Dongxing 
have placed on the administrative record the following document to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control: the 1994 ``Foreign Trade Law of 
the People's Republic of China.'' In other cases involving products 
from the PRC, respondents have submitted the following additional 
documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, and the Department 
has placed these additional documents on the record as well: the ``Law 
of the People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by 
the Whole People,'' adopted on April 13, 1988 (``the Industrial 
Enterprises Law''); ``The Enterprise Legal Person Registration 
Administrative Regulations,'' promulgated on June 13, 1988; the 1990 
``Regulation Governing Rural Collectively-Owned Enterprises of PRC''; 
and the 1992 ``Regulations for Transformation of Operational Mechanisms 
of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises'' (``Business Operation 
Provisions''). (See February 28, 2003, memorandum to the file which 
places the above-referenced laws on the record of this proceeding.)
    As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them 
to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of joint 
ventures and companies owned by ``all of the people'' absent proof on 
the record to the contrary. (See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of 
China (``Furfuryl Alcohol'') 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995), and Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-
Extension Steel Drawer Slides With Rollers From the People's Republic 
of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995).)

2. De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. (See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at 22544.) 
Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto 
control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or 
subject to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 at 22587 and Furfuryl 
Alcohol, 60 FR at 22545.)
    Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Shantou Hongda, and Shenxian Dongxing 
each has asserted the following: (1) Each establishes its own export 
prices; (2) each negotiates contracts without guidance from any 
governmental entities or organizations; (3) each makes its own 
personnel decisions; and (4) each retains the proceeds of its export 
sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the 
authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each 
respondent's questionnaire responses indicate that its

[[Page 10699]]

pricing during the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters. 
Based on our verification findings, there is a sufficient basis to 
preliminarily determine that each of these respondents has demonstrated 
a de facto absence of government control of its export functions and is 
entitled to a separate rate. Consequently, we have preliminarily 
determined that each of these respondents has met the criteria for the 
application of separate rates.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by each 
respondent to the United States were made at less-than-fair-value 
(``LTFV''), we compared the export price to the normal value, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice, below.

Export Price

    We used export price methodology in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold by the exporter 
outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States prior to importation and constructed export price was not 
otherwise indicated. We made the following company-specific 
adjustments:

A. Gerber

    For Gerber, we calculated export price based on packed, delivered 
prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit 
price) for foreign inland freight and international freight (which 
included ocean freight), foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses, and U.S. duty expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of 
the Act. Because foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage, and 
handling charges were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in 
renminbi, we based these charges on surrogate rates from India. (See 
``Surrogate Country'' section below for further discussion of our 
surrogate country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, 
we used a November 1999 average truck freight value based on price 
quotes from Indian trucking companies. (See Brake Rotors from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Preliminary Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review, 68 FR 1031, 1035 
(January 8, 2003).) To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, 
we relied on public information reported in the 1998-1999 antidumping 
duty administrative and new shipper reviews of stainless steel bar from 
India. Because international freight for all U.S. sales was provided by 
a market-economy service provider and paid for in U.S. dollars, we used 
the data reported by Gerber for this charge, adjusted to reflect 
verification findings. Also, as a result of our verification findings, 
we revised the reported U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and added 
an amount for harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees 
to the reported U.S. duty expense amounts. (See Gerber Verification 
Report at 3, and 11-15.)

B. Green Fresh

    For Green Fresh, we calculated export price based on packed, CNF 
foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling 
charges in the PRC, and international freight in accordance with 
section 772(c) of the Act. (See discussion above for further details.) 
Because foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage, and handling charges 
were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in a renminbi, we 
based those charges on surrogate rates from India. Because 
international freight for all U.S. sales was provided by a market-
economy service provider and paid for in U.S. dollars, we used Green 
Fresh's reported data for this charge. Based on our verification 
findings, we revised the reported distance from Green Fresh's supplier 
factory, Zhangzhou Longhai Lu Bao Food Co., Ltd. (``Lu Bao''), to the 
port of exportation. (See Green Fresh Verification Report at 13.)

C. Guangxi Yulin

    For Guangxi Yulin, we calculated export price based on packed, FOB 
foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling 
charges in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign 
inland freight, brokerage and, handling charges were provided by PRC 
service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based these charges on 
surrogate rates from India. (See discussion above for further details.) 
Based on our verification findings, we revised the reported distance 
from Yulin to the port of exportation and the per-unit packed weight 
amount used to calculate foreign inland freight and brokerage and 
handling charges. (See Guangxi Yulin Verification Report at 11, 12.)

D. Shantou Hongda

    For Shantou Hongda, we calculated export price based on packed, FOB 
foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign 
inland freight, brokerage, and handling charges were provided by PRC 
service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based these charges on 
surrogate rates from India. (See discussion above for further details.) 
Because Shantou Hongda reported its U.S. prices net of ocean freight 
(which was separately invoiced and paid in full by its U.S. customers), 
we did not deduct an amount for this expense from the starting price. 
Based on our verification findings, we revised (1) the gross unit 
prices reported for certain transactions as explained further below; 
(2) the reported distance from Shantou Hongda's supplier factory, Lixi 
Cannery (``Lixi''), to the port of exportation; and (3) the reported 
per-unit packed weight based on data contained in the Shantou Hongda's 
response.
    Our verification findings revealed that the gross unit prices 
reported for numerous sales examined at verification (i.e., 15 of 43 
examined sales observations) were incorrect. Therefore, we corrected 
these prices to reflect the actual prices verified. In so doing, we 
found that certain prices were under-reported and other prices were 
over-reported. Because Shantou Hongda did not explain at verification 
the nature of these price reporting errors, and given the number of 
transactions in our verification sample we found to be affected by 
price reporting errors, we determined that it is appropriate, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, to apply facts available to the 
prices of the remaining U.S. transactions. Without reliable price 
information on the record, the Department cannot accurately calculate 
an antidumping rate for Shantou Hongda. Thus, the Department must apply 
facts available. Because Shantou Hongda did not provide the Department 
with an accurate list of U.S. prices, it did not cooperate to the best 
of its ability in responding to the Department's request for 
information. Thus, pursuant to 776(b) of the Act, the Department is 
instructed to apply an inference which is adverse to the uncooperative 
party. Accordingly, as partial adverse facts

[[Page 10700]]

available, we have adjusted the reported U.S. gross prices of the sales 
we did not examine at verification by deducting an amount equal to the 
weighted-average difference between the over-reported and actual prices 
for the sales we did examine at verification. (See Shantou Hongda 
Verification Report at 13, 15.)

E. Shenxian Dongxing

    For Shenxian Dongxing, we calculated export price based on packed, 
FOB foreign port prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting 
price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and 
handling expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because 
foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses were provided 
by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based these 
charges on surrogate rates from India. (See discussion above for 
further details.) Because Shenxian Dongxing reported its U.S. prices 
net of ocean freight (which was separately invoiced and paid in full by 
its U.S. customers), we did not deduct an amount for this expense from 
the starting price. Based on our verification findings, we revised (1) 
the gross unit prices reported for certain U.S. sales transactions; and 
(2) the reported per-unit packed weight based on data contained in the 
record. (See Shenxian Dongxing Verification Report at 14-17.) The error 
in the reported per-unit packed weight for each U.S. sales transaction 
was a result of inaccurate application of Shenxian Dongxing's packed 
weight calculation methodology. As stated in the ``Facts Available'' 
section above, without reliable packing weight information on the 
record, the Department cannot accurately calculate actual U.S. movement 
expenses for each reported U.S. sales transaction. Thus, the 
Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, must apply 
facts available. Because Shenxian Dongxing did not provide the 
Department with accurate per-unit packed weights for each of its U.S. 
sales, it did not cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to 
the Department's request for information. Thus, pursuant to 776(b) of 
the Act, the Department is instructed to apply an inference which is 
adverse to the uncooperative party. Accordingly, as partial adverse 
facts available, we have used the highest reported per-unit packed 
weight figure reported for Shenxian Dongxing's smallest can size to 
calculate the U.S. movement expenses for all its sales of the subject 
merchandise . (See Shenxian Dongxing Verification Report at 14 through 
17.)

Normal Value

A. Non-Market Economy Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. (See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003).) None of the 
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, 
we calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, which applies to NME countries.

B. Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development. (See April 30, 2002, Memorandum from the Office of Policy 
to the Team Leader.) In addition, based on publicly available 
information placed on the record, India is a significant producer of 
the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we selected India as the 
surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production 
because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country 
selection.

C. Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal 
value based on the factors of production which included, but were not 
limited to: (A) Hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw 
materials employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; 
and (D) representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used 
the factors reported by the five respondents which produced the subject 
merchandise they exported to the United States during the POR. To 
calculate normal value, we multiplied the reported unit factor 
quantities by publicly available Indian values.
    Certain respondents failed to provide the Department with requested 
information. Gerber purchased its cow manure and straw from multiple 
suppliers, but did not report a weighted-average distance for those two 
inputs although such information was expressly requested by the 
Department. Green Fresh purchased its labels from multiple suppliers, 
but failed to report a weighted-average distance for those labels, 
again, despite the Department's request for such information. For 
certain inputs (i.e., salt and brined mushrooms), Shantou Hongda made 
errors in reporting the total consumption of these inputs and failed to 
state any reason for those errors. In addition, Shantou Hongda did not 
report the distance for brined and fresh mushrooms which it purchased 
from suppliers during the POR.
    In each of these instances, the respondent failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information, or to explain the reason for the missing information, 
within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Without the requested 
information, the Department must use facts available on the record, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Because the Department 
finds that these parties did not act to the best of their abilities in 
providing us with the necessary information, section 776(b) of the Act 
directs us to apply an adverse inference in these reviews. Accordingly, 
for Gerber, we have used the furthest distance reported for any 
supplier of cow manure and straw to value freight for these inputs, 
respectively. For Green Fresh, we used the furthest distance reported 
for labels to value freight. For Shantou Hongda, we increased the 
reported per-unit factor amounts for brined mushrooms and salt by the 
percentage difference between the reported and verified consumption 
amounts for each input. In addition, we have used the furthest distance 
reported for any of its suppliers of brined/fresh mushrooms to value 
freight.
    Based on our verification findings at Gerber, we also revised the 
following data in Gerber's response: (1) The reported per-unit can, 
lid, label, and processing labor amount for 4-ounce cans; (2) the 
reported per-unit lid and processing labor amount for 68-ounce cans; 
and (3) the distances from Gerber to its coal supplier. In addition, we 
valued the freight for salt and citric based on the supplier distances 
we obtained for those inputs at verification. (See Gerber Verification 
Report at 20, 22, and 24, and February 28, 2003, Memorandum from Case 
Analyst to the

[[Page 10701]]

File re: Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results.)
    Based on our verification findings at Green Fresh, we also revised 
the following data in Green Fresh's response: (1) The reported per-unit 
fresh mushroom, coal (used for growing mushrooms), salt, and processing 
labor amounts for all can sizes; (2) the per-unit amounts for four 
materials reported for one canned mushroom product code; and (3) the 
per-unit amounts for two materials reported for another canned mushroom 
product code. (See Green Fresh Verification Report at 3, 20, and 23, 
and February 28, 2003, Memorandum from Case Analyst to the File re: 
Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results.)
    Based on our verification findings at Shantou Hongda, we also 
revised the following data in Shantou Hongda's response: (1) The salt, 
straw, and labor factors used to preserve the mushrooms at the farm; 
(2) the reported per-unit coal amount for 4, 8, and 16-ounce cans; (3) 
the reported per-unit label and can/lid amounts for 16-ounce cans; and 
(4) the distances from Shantou Hongda's supplier, Lixi, to its 
suppliers for coal, spawn, citric acid, and labels. (See Shantou Hongda 
Verification Report at 7-13, and February 28, 2003, Memorandum from 
Case Analyst to the File re: Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results.)
    Based on our verification findings at Guangxi Yulin, we revised the 
following data in Guangxi Yulin's response: (1) The reported per-unit 
factor amounts for all material, energy, and labor inputs based on 
revisions to the total POR mushroom production quantity figure;\5\ and 
(2) the distances from Guangxi Yulin to its coal, tin plate, citric 
acid, salt, label suppliers. (See Guangxi Yulin Verification Report at 
1, 11, and 26, and February 28, 2003, Memorandum from Case Analyst to 
the File re: Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In order to derive the per-unit consumption amount for each 
factor of production as reported in the Section D response, the 
respondent divided the total POR factor consumption of that input 
over the total POR production weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our verification findings at Shenxian Dongxing, we also 
revised the following data in Shenxian Dongxing's response: (1) The 
reported per-unit potassium super, calcium carbonate, electricity, 
direct and packing labor amounts for all can sizes; (2) the reported 
per-unit copper wire amounts for 4- and 16-ounce cans; (3) the reported 
per-unit tin plate amount for 8-ounce cans; (4) the reported per-unit 
copper wire, tin plate, and glue amounts for 62- and 68-ounce cans; (5) 
the reported per-unit label amounts for 4- and 68-ounce cans; (6) the 
distances from Shenxian Dongxing to 10 of its suppliers situated in 
three locations. (See Shenxian Dongxing Verification Report at 21-23 
and 25-26, and February 28, 2003, Memorandum from Case Analyst to the 
File re: Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results.)
    The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this 
determination was based on the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
to make them delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous 
with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency or in U.S. dollars, we 
adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices (``WPIs'') 
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics.
    To value fresh mushrooms, we used an average price based on data 
contained in the 2000-2001 financial report of Premier Explosives Ltd. 
(``Premier''). For those respondents which purchased brined mushrooms, 
we also used the fresh mushroom price to value brined mushrooms because 
we were unable to obtain publicly available information which contained 
a price for brined mushrooms.
    To value manure, spawn, and straw, we used an average price based 
on data contained in the 2000-2001 financial report of Flex Foods Ltd. 
(``Flex Foods'') and the 2001-2002 financial report of Agro Dutch 
Foods, Ltd. (``Agro Dutch'') (i.e., two Indian producers of the subject 
merchandise). For those respondents which used mother spawn, we also 
used the average spawn price to value mother spawn because we were 
unable to obtain publicly available information which contained a price 
for mother spawn. To value grain and super phosphate, we used price 
data contained in Flex Foods' 2000-2001 financial report because no 
such data was available from the other financial reports on the record. 
To value tin cans and lids, we used price data from the May 21, 2001, 
public version response submitted by Agro Dutch in the 2nd antidumping 
duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, 
and derived per-unit can-size-specific prices using the petitioner's 
methodology contained in its September 6, 2002, PAI submission. To 
value salt, we used price data contained in the 1998-1999 financial 
report of Weikfield Agro Products Ltd. (i.e., another Indian producer 
of the subject merchandise) because no such data was available from the 
other financial reports on the record. To value citric acid, boric 
acid, magnesium sulfate, calcium carbonate, and formaldehyde, we used 
an average price based on April 2001-December 2001 data contained in 
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (``Monthly 
Statistics'') and February 2001-January 2002 data contained in Chemical 
Weekly. For those prices obtained from Chemical Weekly, where 
appropriate, we also deducted an amount for excise taxes based on the 
methodology applied to values from the same source in a prior review 
involving the subject merchandise from the PRC. (See page 4 of the May 
31, 2001, Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695 (June 7, 2001) which has been 
placed on the record of this proceeding.) To value calcium phosphate, 
we used a December 1999 value from Chemical Market Reporter. Although 
the value from Chemical Market Reporter was in U.S. dollars, it was not 
contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we inflated this value to the 
POR using WPIs.
    To value gypsum, we used an average price based on April 2001-
December 2001 data contained in Monthly Statistics and data contained 
in Flex Foods' 2000-2001 financial report. To value potassium super, we 
used an average price based on February 2001-January 2002 data 
contained in Chemical Weekly. To value carbamide (i.e., urea), we used 
an average price based on February 2001-January 2002 data contained in 
Chemical Weekly and data contained in Flex Foods' 2000-2001 financial 
report. To value cotton, tin plate scrap, copper conducting wire, and 
copper wire scrap, can and lid scrap, and coal, we used April 2001-
December 2001 average import values from Monthly Statistics. We also 
added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges 
associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 
Indian price data contained in the periodical Business Line. To value 
tin plate, we used an average price based on April 2001-December 2001 
data contained in Monthly Statistics and data contained in Agro Dutch's 
2001-2002 financial report.
    We did not value water separately because, consistent with our 
methodology used in prior reviews of the subject merchandise, we 
believe that the costs for water are included as factory overhead in 
the Indian financial statements used to calculate factory overhead, 
selling, general, and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit. 
(See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic

[[Page 10702]]

of China: Final Results of Third New Shipper Review and Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 46173 (July 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.)
    To value electricity, we used the 2000-2001 ``revised estimate'' 
average rate for industrial consumption as published in the Annual 
Report (2001-02) on the Working of State Electricity Boards & 
Electricity Departments by the Government of India's Planning 
Commission (Power & Energy Division).
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, we used the audited 2001-2002 
financial data of Agro Dutch and the audited 2000-2001 financial data 
of Flex Foods and Himalya International Ltd. (``Himalya''), all Indian 
producers of the subject merchandise. In addition, we did not use two 
other Indian sources of data: the 2000-2001 fiscal data obtained for 
Premier or the 1999-2000 fiscal data obtained for Hindustan Lever 
Limited, because although each company produces the subject 
merchandise, the subject merchandise is but one of several products 
which they produce and is not the major product produced by either 
company.
    Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate overhead and 
SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial 
reports. We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated as a 
result of reclassifying certain expenses contained in the financial 
reports. For a further discussion of the adjustments made, see the 
Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum.
    All inputs were shipped by truck. Therefore, to value PRC inland 
freight, we used a November 1999 average truck freight value based on 
price quotes from Indian trucking companies.
    In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997), we revised our methodology for calculating source-to-
factory surrogate freight for those material inputs that are valued 
based on CIF import values in the surrogate country. Therefore, we have 
added to CIF surrogate values from India a surrogate freight cost using 
the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port 
of importation to the factory, or from the domestic supplier to the 
factory on an input-specific basis.
    To value corrugated cartons, labels, paper, separators, tape, and 
glue we used April 2001-December 2001 average import values from 
Monthly Statistics.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
following exporters under review during the period February 1, 2001, 
through January 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin
              Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd.............................     * 46.41
Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd....................     * 46.41
Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd (``Guangxi Yulin'')..        0.00
Guangxi Yulin / all others................................      198.63
Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation.............      118.51
Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd..........................    ** 68.45
PRC-Wide Rate.............................................      198.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The margin calculated for Gerber is 1.17 percent and that calculated
  for Green Fresh is 46.41 percent. However, for cash deposit purposes,
  as explained above, we have assigned to Gerber and Green Fresh the
  higher of the rates calculated for each of them during the POR. For
  assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-specific duty
  assessment rates based on the data provided by these two companies, as
  adjusted to reflect verification findings.
** For assessment purposes, we intend to instruct the Customs Service to
  apply Shenxian Dongxing's margin to the entered value of the subject
  merchandise from Shenxian Dongxing during the POR, irrespective of
  importer, because we were not able to rely on its reported quantity
  amounts in order to calculate importer-specific assessment rates on a
  per-unit basis, as indicated in the ``Assessment Rates'' section
  below. (See ``Facts Available'' section above for further discussion.)

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. If requested, a hearing will be held 44 
days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first work 
day thereafter.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the 
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties 
may be submitted not later than March 31, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, will be due not later than April 7, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
and new shipper reviews, including the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, 
not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For assessment 
purposes, we do not have the actual entered value for any respondent 
(with the exception of Gerber) for which we calculated a margin because 
they are not the importers of record for the subject merchandise. For 
these respondents for which we do not have entered value information, 
we intend to calculate individual customer-specific assessment rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales 
examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales 
examined.
    Although Gerber was the importer of record, it did not provide 
entered value data for each of its reported U.S. sales. Therefore, 
because we do not have entered value information for all of its U.S. 
sales, we will also calculate for this respondent importer-specific 
duty assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for the examined sales and dividing this 
amount by the total entered quantity of the sales examined. To 
determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., less 
than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 
CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate importer-or customer-specific ad 
valorem ratios based on export prices.
    The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service upon completion of these reviews. We 
will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate

[[Page 10703]]

entries covered by this review if any importer- or customer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of these reviews is 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(1). For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR 
from companies not subject to these reviews, we will instruct the 
Customs Service to liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at 
the time of entry. The final results of this review shall be the basis 
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 
covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits 
of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security 
requirements for shipments from Guangxi Yulin of certain preserved 
mushrooms from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of 
the new shipper review. Furthermore, the following cash deposit 
requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of 
the new shipper review for all shipments from Guangxi Yulin of subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date: (1) For subject merchandise manufactured 
and exported by Guangxi Yulin, we will require a cash deposit at the 
rate established in the final results; and (2) for subject merchandise 
exported by Guangxi Yulin but not manufactured by it, the cash deposit 
will be the PRC countrywide rate (i.e., 198.63 percent).
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of the antidumping administrative 
review for all shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC 
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 each respondent listed above will be the rate 
established in the final results; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC 
exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the 
proceeding and for whom there was no request for administrative review 
(e.g., China Processed and Raoping Xingyu) will continue to be the rate 
assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate 
for the PRC NME entity (including Shenzhen Qunxingyuan and Zhangzhou 
Jingxiang) will continue to be 198.63 percent; and (4) the cash deposit 
rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    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.
    These administrative and new shipper reviews and notice are in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b).

    Dated: February 28, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-5301 Filed 3-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P