[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65247-65249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-813]


Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final 
Determination to Not Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from 
Thailand.

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

SUMMARY: On June 27, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit (CPF) from Thailand. 
This review covers seven producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2001, through June 
30, 2002. Based on our analysis of the comments received, these final 
results differ from the preliminary results. The final results are 
listed below in the Final Results of Review section. Consistent with 
the preliminary results, we are rescinding the review with respect to 
Prachuab Fruit Canning Company (Praft) based on our determination that 
this company had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  November 19, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Charles Riggle, Office 
5, Group II, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2336 and (202) 482-0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This review covers the following producers/exporters of merchandise 
subject to the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand: Vita Food 
Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita), Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd. 
(Kuiburi), Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee), The Thai Pineapple 
Public Co., Ltd. (TIPCO), Thai Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd. 
(TPC), Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Packaged Foods Company, and Dole 
Thailand, Ltd. (collectively, Dole), and Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co., 
Ltd. (SIFCO).
    On June 27, 2003, the Department published the preliminary results 
of this review and invited interested parties to comment on those 
results. See Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Determination 
to Not Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 68 
FR 38291 (Preliminary Results). On July 28, 2003, we received case 
briefs from Dole, Malee, TPC, and the petitioners.\1\ On July 28, 2003, 
SIFCO submitted what it claimed was a case brief, but it was rejected 
by the Department for being comprised strictly of new factual 
information.\2\ On August 4, 2003, we received rebuttal briefs from 
Dole, Malee, and the petitioners. We received rebuttal comments from 
Kuiburi on August 8, 2003.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in the case are Maui Pineapple Company and 
the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union.
    \2\ See Letter to Mr. Prayut Visutvatanasak from Gary Taverman, 
Director, Office 5, Import Administration (July 30, 2003).
    \3\ Kuiburi was granted permission to submit rebuttal comments 
on August 8, 2003, due to a delay in its receipt of the petitioners' 
case brief. See Letter to Mr. Wichian Boonmapajorn from Charles 
Riggle, Program Manager, Office 5 (August 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 28, 2003, Malee and the petitioners requested a public 
hearing, and Dole asked to participate if one was held. A public 
hearing \4\ was held September 5, 2003, and was attended by Dole, 
Malee, and the petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The petitioners' request for an in camera hearing was 
rejected because they failed to satisfy the criteria outlined in 
section 351.310(f) of the Department's regulations. See Letter to 
the petitioners from Gary Taverman (August 4, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is CPF, defined as pineapple 
processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, 
pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and 
cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. 
CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 
2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; 
HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e., juice-
packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and for customs purposes, the written description of the scope is 
dispositive.

Rescission

    On October 4, 2002, in response to the Department's questionnaire, 
Praft stated that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. We ran a customs query and found that 
Praft had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We 
received no comments regarding our preliminary decision to rescind the 
review with respect to Praft and, consistent with the preliminary 
results, we are rescinding the review with respect to Praft.

[[Page 65248]]

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand'' from Holly Kuga, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Group II, Import Administration, to 
James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
October 27, 2003 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this 
notice.
    A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, is 
attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Except for the calculations for Dole, TIPCO, and Malee, we 
calculated export price (EP) and normal value (NV) based on the same 
methodology used in the preliminary results. Changes to the U.S.-dollar 
denominated credit expense for TIPCO and Canadian credit expense and 
quantity weight field used in the margin calculation for Dole are 
detailed in their respective analysis memoranda and/or the Decision 
Memorandum. For Malee, the Department discovered that one sale should 
be treated as constructed export price during the POR, rather than as 
EP. The changes made to account for this are detailed in Malee's 
Analysis Memorandum.

Cost of Production

    Except for Dole, TIPCO, and Kuiburi, we calculated the cost of 
production (COP) for the merchandise based on the same methodology used 
in the preliminary results. Changes to the general and administrative 
(G&A) expense ratio for TIPCO, tinplate costs for Dole, and pineapple 
weight volume, G&A and interest expense, and net realizable value for 
Kuiburi are detailed in the these companies' respective analysis 
memoranda and the Decision Memorandum.

No Revocation in Part

    On July 31, 2002, Dole requested that the Department revoke the 
antidumping duty order in part as regards Dole based on the absence of 
dumping pursuant to section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's 
regulations. Dole submitted, along with its revocation request, a 
certification stating that: (1) the company did not sell subject 
merchandise at less than NV during the POR, and that in the future it 
would not sell such merchandise at less than NV (see section 351.222 
(e)(1)(i)) of the Department's regulations; (2) the company has sold 
subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities 
during each of the past three years (see section 351.222(e)(1)(ii)) of 
the Department's regulations; and (3) the company agreed to its 
immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV. See sections 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) and 351.222(e)(1)(iii) 
of the Department's regulations.
    Based on a recent redetermination pursuant to a court remand and 
affirmed in Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 03-
120 (Court of International Trade September 15, 2003), Court No. 01-03-
01017, Dole's margin for the fifth POR (July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000) 
of this proceeding is now above de minimis. See Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to United States Court of International Trade 
Remand Order Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 
03-42 (April 17, 2003) Court No. 01-03-01017 filed with the court on 
June 16, 2003. We preliminarily determined that Dole had failed to 
demonstrate that it has not made sales at less than NV over the past 
three years. No comments were placed on the record to dispute this and 
our remand results have been affirmed. Therefore, for the final 
results, we will not revoke the order with respect to merchandise 
produced/exported by Dole.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2001, 
through June 30, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Margin
                 Manufacturer/Exporter                  [chyph](percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole)........................             0.49
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd. (TIPCO).......             0.22
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd. (Kuiburi)..............             0.46
Thai Pineapple Canning [chyph]Industry (TPC)..........            51.16
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd. (SIFCO)............             8.39
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co. Ltd. (Vita)..............             1.93
Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. (Malee)................             7.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by 
dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined 
by the entered value of such merchandise with the exception of TPC. 
Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of 
subject merchandise. In the case of TPC, which, due the application of 
adverse facts available (AFA), we have not calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all the subject merchandise at the AFA rate. The Department 
will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP 
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act): (1) for the companies 
named above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above, 
except where the margins are zero or de minimis no cash deposit will be 
required; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters 
not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this 
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that 
manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this 
proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that 
established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final 
results of review or in the

[[Page 65249]]

most recent segment of the proceeding in which that manufacturer 
participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 
firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this 
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 24.64 percent, the all-others 
rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These 
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the 
final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in 
the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective 
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 
section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Failure to 
comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 10, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO DOLE

Comment 1: Comparison Market
Comment 2: Third-Party Verification
Comment 3: Use of Facts Available
Comment 4: Affiliation
Comment 5: General and Administrative (G&A) Expense Ratio
Comment 6: Tinplate
Comment 7: Credit Expenses
Comment 8: Quantity Weighting Factors
Comment 9: Calculation of the Constructed Export Price (CEP) and 
Commission Offsets

II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO KUIBURI

Comment 10: Volume of Pineapple Input for Product Specific Fruit Costs
Comment 11: Costs Outside the POR
Comment 12: G&A and Interest Expenses
Comment 13: Net Realizable Value (NRV)

III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO MALEE

Comment 14: NRV

IV. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TIPCO

Comment 15: Proposed Interest Income Offset
Comment 16: G&A Expenses
Comment 17: Direct Materials Cost
Comment 18: Credit Expenses

V. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TPC

Comment 19: Appropriate Basis for Determining Normal Value
Comment 20: Application of Adverse Facts Available
Comment 21: Appropriateness of Margin Selected for Adverse Facts 
Available
Comment 22: Control of TPC by MC

VI. GENERAL ISSUE

Comment 23: Assessment Rates
[FR Doc. 03-28802 Filed 11-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S