[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11051-11057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5492]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-802]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Indonesia: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Order in 
Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review and notice of intent to revoke order in part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests by three manufacturers/
exporters, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms 
from Indonesia. The respondents in this proceeding are PT Indo 
Evergreen Agro Business Corp. (``Indo Evergreen''), and PT Zeta Agro 
Corporation (``Zeta'').\1\ The petitioner, the Coalition for Fair 
Preserved Mushroom Trade,\2\ did not comment. The period of review is 
February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PT Dieng Djaya (``Dieng'') and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa 
(``Dieng/Surya'') also requested an administrative review but timely 
withdrew their request (see Certain Preserved Mushrooms from 
Indonesia: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR1177 (January 9, 2003)).
    \2\ The Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade includes the 
American Mushroom Institute and the following domestic companies: 
L.K. Bowman, Inc., Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushrooms Farms, Inc., 
Toughkernamon, PA; Monterrey Mushrooms, Inc., Watsonville, CA; Mount 
Laurel Canning Corp., Temple, PA; Mushrooms Canning Company, Kennett 
Square, PA; Southwood Farms, Hockessin, DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., 
Oxford, PA; United Canning Corp., North Lima, OH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department preliminarily determines that, during the period of 
review (``POR''), Zeta and Indo Evergreen did not make sales of the 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') (i.e., they made 
sales at zero or de minimis dumping margins). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, 
we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate appropriate 
entries without regard to antidumping duties.
    In addition, we preliminarily intend to revoke the order with 
respect to Zeta, because we find that Zeta has met all of the 
requirements for revocation, as set forth in section 351.222(b) of the 
Department's regulations.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophie Castro or Rebecca Trainor, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration-Room B-099, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone : 
(202) 482-0588 or (202) 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 31, 1998, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (63 FR 72268), the final

[[Page 11052]]

affirmative antidumping duty determination of sales at less than fair 
value (``LTFV'') on certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia. We 
published an antidumping duty order on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8310).
    On February 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period February 1, 2001, 
through January 31, 2002 (67 FR 4945). On February 28, 2002, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we received timely requests from 
Indo Evergreen, Zeta and Dieng/Surya that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of their exports to the United States. In 
addition, Dieng/Surya and Zeta requested that the Department revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to them. We published a notice of 
initiation of the review on March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14696).
    On April 15, 2002, we issued antidumping questionnaires to Dieng/
Surya, Indo Evergreen, and Zeta. On May 20, 2002, Dieng/Surya timely 
withdrew their request for an administrative review. We issued Sections 
A through D supplemental questionnaires to Indo Evergreen and Zeta in 
July 2002; additional Section D supplemental questionnaires were issued 
to Indo Evergreen and Zeta in August 2002. We received timely responses 
to our original and supplemental questionnaires from Indo Evergreen and 
Zeta in June, August and September 2002.
    On August 16, 2002, due to the reasons set forth in the Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 53565 (August 16, 2002), 
we extended the due date for the preliminary results. In accordance 
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we extended the due date for the 
preliminary results by the maximum 120 days allowable or until February 
28, 2003.
    On January 9, 2003, we published a notice of rescission with 
respect to Dieng/Surya. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia: 
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
68 FR1177 (January 9, 2003).

Scope of the 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.
    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 \3\ (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prior to January 1, 2002, the HTS codes 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales to the United States of certain 
preserved mushrooms by Indo Evergreen and Zeta were made at less than 
NV, we compared export price to the NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export 
prices of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of 
the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary 
course of trade at prices above the cost of production (``COP''), as 
discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Indo Evergreen and Zeta, covered by the 
description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and sold by 
the respondents in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market 
within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three 
months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in 
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade.
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in 
the following order: preservation method, container type, mushroom 
style, weight, grade, container solution and label type. See ``Normal 
Value'' section below for further discussion.

Export Price

    For both respondents we used the export price calculation 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly by the producer/exporter in 
Indonesia to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
prior to importation and constructed export price (``CEP'') treatment 
was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated export price based on the packed FOB seaport prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign 
inland insurance, and brokerage and handling, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. As a result of verification, we made 
adjustments to the companies' data where applicable, with respect to 
discounts, packing and shipment dates. See the Memorandum to the File: 
Preliminary Results of Third Administrative Review for Zeta (``Zeta's 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum'') and Memorandum to the File: 
Preliminary Results of Third Administrative Review for Indo Evergreen, 
both dated February 28, 2003, on file in the Central Records Unit 
(CRU), Room B099 of the Main Commerce building.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared each respondent's volume of home market

[[Page 11053]]

sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the 
Act.
    Indo Evergreen's and Zeta's aggregate volumes of home market sales 
of the foreign like product were greater than five percent of their 
aggregate volumes of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, 
we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for 
calculating NV for both Indo Evergreen and Zeta, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.

Arm's-Length Sales

    Indo Evergreen and Zeta each reported sales of the foreign like 
product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to 
affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we 
compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, 
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and 
packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was on average 99.5 
percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined 
that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Antidumping Duties; Contervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27355 (May 19, 1997) (preamble to the Department's regulations). 
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403(c), we excluded from our analysis those 
sales where the price to the affiliated parties was less than 99.5 
percent of the price to the unaffiliated parties.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We have not applied the new calculation methodology for the 
arm's-length test, as set out in Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, as this 
review was initiated prior to the November 23, 2002, date stipulated 
in that notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted 
verifications of the information provided by Indo Evergreen and Zeta. 
Because of the political instability in Indonesia, verification took 
place in Singapore. We used standard verification procedures including 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
relevant source documentation as exhibits. Our verification findings 
are detailed and on file in the CRU.

Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Cut-to-Length Plate from South 
Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of 
distribution''), including selling functions, class of customer 
(``customer category''), and the level of selling expenses incurred for 
each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for export price and comparison market sales (i.e., NV 
based on either home market or third country prices \5\), we consider 
the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider 
only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction 
of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Where NV is based on constructed value, we determine the NV 
LOT based on the LOT of the sale from which we derive selling, 
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit for 
constructed value, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 
Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the 
comparison market. In comparing export price or CEP sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if a NV LOT is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether 
the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability 
(i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Cut-to-
Length Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We obtained information from Indo Evergreen and Zeta regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by 
Indo Evergreen and Zeta for each channel of distribution. Company-
specific LOT findings are summarized below.
    Indo Evergreen: All of Indo Evergreen's sales in the home market 
are through distributors who resell the merchandise to wholesalers for 
distribution, with the exception of a small amount of sales to its 
employees for consumption. We examined those two channels of 
distribution and the selling activities associated with home market 
sales through these channels of distribution, and determined that there 
was little difference in the relevant selling functions provided by 
Indo Evergreen. Specifically, Indo Evergreen does not provide inventory 
maintenance, after-sale services, technical advice, advertising, or 
sales support for any of its home market customers. Indo Evergreen does 
perform some sales activity related to pre-delivery inspection. Indo 
Evergreen stated that these services are provided to all home market 
customers regardless of the channels of distribution or customer 
categories. Because Indo Evergreen has the same selling functions for 
both channels of distribution (i.e., pre-delivery inspections), we find 
that both channels of distribution constitute one LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Indo Evergreen made only export price sales 
through two channels of distribution: (1) Through trading companies, 
and (2) through distributors who resold the merchandise to wholesalers 
for distribution either to supermarket chains or food service 
distributors. Similar to the home market LOT, Indo Evergreen does not 
provide inventory maintenance, after-sale services, technical advice, 
advertising, or sales support in selling to its U.S. customers. In 
addition, Indo Evergreen does perform some sales activity related to 
pre-delivery inspection. Indo Evergreen stated that these services are 
provided equally to all customers regardless of the channels of 
distribution or customer categories. Accordingly, there is only one LOT 
for U.S. sales.
    We compared the export price LOT to the home market LOT and 
concluded that the selling functions performed for home market 
customers are the same as those performed for U.S. customers (i.e., 
pre-delivery inspection). Accordingly, we consider the export price and 
home market LOTs to be the same. Consequently, we are comparing export 
price sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market.
    Zeta: Zeta reported sales in the home market through two channels 
of distribution: (1) Uaffiliated distributors, and (2) unaffiliated 
end-users. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling 
activities associated with home market sales through these

[[Page 11054]]

channels of distribution, and determined that there was little 
difference in the relevant selling functions provided by Zeta. 
Specifically, Zeta made only delivery arrangements for distributors and 
trading companies. Zeta does not maintain inventory or provide 
technical advice, warranty service or advertising for home market 
sales. Zeta did not indicate that there are any differences with 
respect to freight and delivery services between these channels of 
distribution or customer categories. Therefore, we find that the home 
market channels of distribution do not differ significantly from each 
other with respect to selling activities and, therefore, constitute one 
LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Zeta made only export price sales through one 
channel of distribution: sales to distributors shipped directly to the 
United States. Zeta incurred freight costs in delivering the product to 
the port. Zeta provided no technical advice or warranty services in the 
U.S. market, nor did it provide inventory maintenance, advertising, or 
sales support in selling to its U.S. customers. Accordingly, there is 
only one LOT for U.S. sales.
    We compared the export price LOT to the home market LOT and 
concluded that the selling functions performed for home market 
customers are the same as those performed for U.S. customers (i.e., 
freight/delivery services). Accordingly, we consider the export price 
and home market LOTs to be the same. Consequently, we are comparing 
export price sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales that failed the cost test for Indo 
Evergreen and Zeta in the last completed segment of the proceeding (see 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Indonesia: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 32014 (May 13, 2002)), we 
had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondents' 
sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the 
determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below 
the cost of production (COP), as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
initiated a COP investigation of home market sales made by Indo 
Evergreen and Zeta.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Indo Evergreen's and Zeta's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses (``G&A''), interest expenses, and home market 
packing costs (see ``Test of Home Market Sales Prices'' section below 
for treatment of home market selling expenses).
    For these preliminary results, we have implemented a change in 
practice regarding the treatment of foreign exchange gains and losses. 
The Department's previous practice was to have respondents identify the 
source of all foreign exchange gains and losses (e.g., debt, accounts 
receivable, accounts payable, cash deposits) at both a consolidated and 
unconsolidated corporate level. At the consolidated level, the portion 
of foreign exchange gains and losses generated by debt or cash deposits 
was included in the interest expense rate computation. At the 
unconsolidated producer level, foreign exchange gains and losses on 
accounts payable were either included in the G&A rate computation, or 
under certain circumstances, in the cost of manufacturing. Gains and 
losses on accounts receivable at both the consolidated and 
unconsolidated producer levels were excluded from the COP and CV 
calculations.
    Instead of splitting apart the foreign exchange gains and losses as 
reported in an entity's financial statements, we will normally include 
in the financial expense computation all foreign exchange gains and 
losses. In doing so, we will no longer include a portion of foreign 
exchange gains and losses from two different financial statements 
(i.e., consolidated and unconsolidated producer). Instead, we will only 
include the foreign exchange gains and losses reported in the financial 
statement of the same entity used to compute each respondent's net 
interest expense rate. This approach recognizes that the key measure is 
not necessarily what generated the exchange gain or loss, but rather 
how well the entity as a whole was able to manage its foreign currency 
exposure in any one currency. As such, for these preliminary results, 
we included all foreign exchange gains or losses in the financial 
expense rate computation. We note that there may be unusual 
circumstances in certain cases which may cause the Department to 
deviate from this general practice. We will address exceptions on a 
case by case basis.
    As this is a change in practice, we invite the parties to the 
proceeding to comment on this issue. We will address such comments in 
the final results of this review.
    We relied on the COP information the respondents provided in their 
questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments:
    Indo Evergreen: We revised the reported costs to allocate the 
change in work-in-progress, the used compost offset and additional 
plantation costs to all fresh mushroom production rather than only 
fresh mushrooms sent to the cannery. We disallowed Indo Evergreen's 
claimed offset for refunded import duties that were paid on the raw 
materials used in the manufacture of cans used for export sales. We 
revised direct materials, direct labor, variable overhead and fixed 
overhead to account for the cost of manufacturing of fresh mushrooms 
sold as fresh, as Indo Evergreen had incorrectly reduced direct 
materials for the entire cost of manufacturing of fresh mushrooms sold 
as fresh. We reclassified a portion of utilities and gas and oil 
expenses as variable overhead costs, rather than fixed overhead costs 
as reported. We revised general and administrative expenses to exclude 
an offset for sales revenue adjustments and to exclude the double-
counting of the used compost revenue offset. We also revised both the 
financial and general and administrative expense rates to include the 
additional plantation expense in the denominator of the calculations. 
Finally, we revised the reported costs to account for all foreign 
exchange gains and losses in the financial expense rate. For further 
details, see Preliminary Calculation Memorandum from Heidi Schriefer, 
Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 
Import Administration, dated February 28, 2003.
    Zeta: We disallowed Zeta's claimed offset for refunded import 
duties paid on the raw materials used in the manufacture of cans used 
for export sales. We increased Zeta's G&A expenses to include all the 
G&A expenses incurred by Zeta's parent company. We included the total 
amount of the parent's G&A because Zeta was unable to demonstrate which 
G&A expenses had been incurred by the parent on Zeta's behalf. For 
further details, see Preliminary Calculation Memorandum from LaVonne 
Jackson, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, Import Administration, dated February 28, 2003.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
to the prices of home market sales of the foreign like product, as 
required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
these sales were made at prices below the COP. The

[[Page 11055]]

prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts, 
and direct and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to 
disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we 
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 
whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time, (2) 
in substantial quantities, and (3) at prices which did not permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We adjusted 
Zeta's reported home market indirect selling expenses to exclude 
certain misclassified expenses. For further details, see Zeta's 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the 
COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined that 
they represented ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period 
of time, and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.
    The results of our cost tests for Indo Evergreen and Zeta indicated 
for certain home market products that less than 20 percent of Indo 
Evergreen's and Zeta's home market sales were at prices less than the 
COP. We therefore retained all sales of these models in our analysis 
and used them as the basis for determining NV.
    Our cost tests also indicated, for Zeta, that for certain other 
home market products, more than twenty percent of home market sales 
within an extended period of time were at prices below COP and would 
not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded 
these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales 
as the basis for determining NV.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For Indo Evergreen and Zeta, we based NV on the price at which the 
foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the exporting 
country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
of trade, and at the same LOT as the export price, as defined by 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
    Home market prices were based on either ex-factory or delivered 
prices. We reduced NV for home market movement expenses, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii). We also 
reduced NV for packing costs incurred in the home market, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i), and increased NV to account for U.S. 
packing expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). We also made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in 
accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit and bank 
charges), where applicable.
    Finally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Revocation

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation 
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review 
period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the 
future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming 
the basis of the revocation request; and (3) an agreement to 
reinstatement in the order or suspended investigation, as long as any 
exporter or producer is subject to the order (or suspended 
investigation), if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or 
producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, 
the Department will consider the following in determining whether to 
revoke the order in part: (1) Whether the producer or exporter 
requesting revocation has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV 
for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the 
continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise 
necessary to offset dumping; and (3) whether the producer or exporter 
requesting revocation in part has agreed in writing to the immediate 
reinstatement of the order, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the exporter or 
producer, subsequent to revocation, sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2); see also Notice of Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Certain 
Pasta From Italy, 66 FR 34414, 34420 (June 28, 2001).
    On February 28, 2002, Zeta submitted a request that the Department 
revoke the order covering certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia 
with respect to its sales of subject merchandise in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.222. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), the request was 
accompanied by certifications from Zeta that, for a consecutive three-
year period, including this review period, it sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV, and would 
continue to do so in the future. Zeta also agreed to its immediate 
reinstatement in this antidumping order, as long as any company is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to 
revocation, Zeta sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. We 
received no comments from the petitioner on Zeta's request for 
revocation.
    Based on the preliminary results of this review and the final 
results of the two preceding reviews, Zeta has preliminarily 
demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. 
Further, in determining whether three years of no dumping establish a 
sufficient basis to make a revocation determination, the Department 
must be able to determine that the company continued to participate 
meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three years at 
issue. See 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1), which states that, ``before revoking 
an order or terminating a suspended investigation, the Secretary must 
be satisfied that, during each of the three (or five) years, there were 
exports to the United States in commercial quantities of the subject

[[Page 11056]]

merchandise to which a revocation or termination will apply.'' 19 CFR 
351.222(d)(1) (emphasis added); see also 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(ii). For 
purposes of revocation, the Department must be able to determine that 
past margins are reflective of a company's normal commercial activity. 
See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in 
Part, 64 FR 2173, 2175 (January 13, 1999); see also Pure Magnesium From 
Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 
16, 1999); and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping 
Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742 (January 
6, 2000). Sales during the POR which, in the aggregate, are of an 
abnormally small quantity do not provide a reasonable basis for 
determining that the discipline of the order is no longer necessary to 
offset dumping.
    We preliminarily find that Zeta's aggregate sales to the United 
States were made in commercial quantities during the past three 
consecutive years. See Zeta's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 
Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the zero and de minimis 
margins calculated for Zeta in each of the last three administrative 
reviews are reflective of the company's normal commercial experience.
    Zeta also agreed in writing that it will not sell subject 
merchandise at less than NV in the future and to the immediate 
reinstatement of the antidumping order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, 
subsequent to the partial revocation, Zeta has sold the subject 
merchandise at less than NV. Thus, in light of the above and pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.222, we preliminarily find that the subject merchandise 
produced and exported by Zeta was sold at not less than NV for a period 
of at least three consecutive years and that dumping is not likely to 
resume in the future. Consequently, the continuing imposition of an 
antidumping duty is not necessary to offset dumping.
    Therefore, if these preliminary results are affirmed in our final 
results, we intend to revoke the order in part with respect to 
merchandise produced and exported by Zeta. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(3), we will terminate the suspension of liquidation for any 
such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on the first day after the period under review, and will instruct the 
Customs Service to refund any cash deposits.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margins for the period February 1, 2001, 
though January 31, 2002, are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacture/exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp.....  0.30 (de minimis)
PT Zeta Agro Corporation.................  0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose calculations used in our analysis to parties to 
this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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. 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 the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested 
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37 
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (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 this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, 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 values for Indo Evergreen 
and Zeta because these respondents are not the importers of record for 
the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we intend to calculate importer-
specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all of Indo Evergreen's and Zeta's U.S. sales examined and dividing 
the respective amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To 
determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 
will calculate importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on export 
prices.
    The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service upon completion of this review. We will 
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 
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 this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Indo Evergreen 
(Zeta is excepted due to revocation) will be that established in the 
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 
percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) 
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.26 percent, the ``All 
Others'' rate made

[[Page 11057]]

effective by the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: February 28, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-5492 Filed 3-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P