[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41303-41304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17627]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-813]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the third administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. The 
review covers three manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is 
February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Katherine 
Johnson, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration--
Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The review covers three manufacturers/exporters: Agro Dutch Foods 
Ltd. (``Agro Dutch''), Himalya International Ltd. (``Himalya''), and 
Weikfield Agro Products Ltd. (``Weikfield''). The period of review is 
February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002.
    On March 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the third administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (68 FR 
11045). We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of 
review. On April 7, 2003, we received a request for a public hearing 
from respondent Weikfield. We received case briefs from the 
petitioner,\1\ Agro Dutch, and Weikfield on May 2, 2003. We received 
rebuttal briefs from the petitioner and Weikfield on May 13, 2003. On 
June 3, 2003, Weikfield withdrew its request for a public hearing. We 
have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain preserved mushrooms, 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
preserved mushrooms covered under the 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 the 
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 the 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 the 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 (``HTSUS'') \2\. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prior to January 1, 2002, the HTSUS numbers 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the 
``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (``Decision Memo'') from Jeffrey 
May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. 
Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
July 7, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the 
issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of 
which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised 
in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public 
memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of 
the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memo are identical in content.

Changes From the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes to the margin calculations, including:
    [sbull] We revised the calculation for Weikfield's indirect selling 
expenses to exclude the amounts for commissions and discounts Weikfield 
and its affiliate paid to unaffiliated parties.
    [sbull] We revised Weikfield's U.S. indirect selling expenses used 
as an offset to home market commissions to include inventory carrying 
expenses.
    [sbull] We excluded a deduction from Weikfield's home market price 
for ``Discount Program 2.''
    [sbull] We did not make a deduction for the Indian export tax to 
the price of one of Weikfield's U.S. sales.
    [sbull] We revised Weikfield's reported general and administrative 
(G&A) expenses to include idle depreciation costs experienced during 
the POR. [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES][NOTICE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT][/
PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED]
    [sbull] We revised Weikfield's reported financial expenses to 
exclude long-term financial and non-financial income. In addition, we 
included all financial expenses incurred during the POR, including 
certain expenses associated with debt restructuring. Finally, we

[[Page 41304]]

calculated the financial expense ratio based on the highest level of 
audited fiscal year financial statements prepared by Weikfield.
    [sbull] As Agro Dutch had no comparison market during the POR, and 
its constructed value selling expenses and profit rate were based on 
the weighted-average selling and profit amounts incurred on home market 
sales by Himalya and Weikfield, we revised the selling expenses and 
profit used to calculate Agro Dutch's constructed value to account for 
the revisions to the Weikfield margin calculation outlined above. For a 
discussion of these changes, see the ``Margin Calculations'' section of 
the Decision Memo and the various comments discussed in the Decision 
Memo.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agro Dutch Foods Ltd/Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.............         1.02
Himalya International Ltd (de minimis).....................         0.08
Weikfield Agro Products Ltd................................        34.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (BCBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to BCBP within 15 days of publication of these 
final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), we 
will instruct BCBP 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). For assessment purposes, we do not have 
the actual entered value for Agro Dutch and Weikfield because these 
respondents are not the importers of record for the subject 
merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated customer-specific 
assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
of Agro Dutch's and Weikfield's U.S. sales examined and dividing the 
respective amounts by the total quantity of the sales examined for each 
producer. With respect to Himalya, we calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates for the subject merchandise from Himalya by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of Himalya's U.S. 
sales examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value 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 calculated customer-or importer-specific ad valorem 
ratios based on export prices.

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 rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those 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 less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.30 percent. This rate 
is the ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We 
are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated:July 7, 2003.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.

Appendix--List of Issues

Company-Specific Comments:

Agro Dutch

Comment 1: Calculation of the Work-in-Process Offset
Comment 2: Application of Adverse Facts Available

Weikfield

Comment 3: Home Market Quantity Discounts
Comment 4: Affiliated Party Commissions
Comment 5: Home Market Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 6: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses for Commission Offset
Comment 7: Calculation of U.S. Credit Expense
Comment 8: CESS for Observation 33
Comment 9: Offset to Direct Materials Cost
Comment 10: Depreciation of Idle Assets
Comment 11: Addition of WPCL General and Administrative Expenses
Comment 12: Weikfield General and Administrative Expense Calculation
Comment 13: Gain on Debt Restructuring as Offset to Financial 
Expenses
Comment 14: Interest Expenses from ICICI Loan
Comment 15: Cost of Goods Sold for the Financial Expense Ratio
Comment 16: Offsetting Positive Margins with Negative Margins

[FR Doc. 03-17627 Filed 7-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P