[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 85 (Monday, May 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24123-24128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty new shipper 
reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting new shipper reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of 
China. The period of review is November 1, 2002, through April 30, 
2003. The reviews cover six manufacturers/exporters.
    We preliminarily determine that Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company, 
Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd., Sunny Imp & Exp 
Limited, and Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd., have not made sales in the 
United States at prices below normal value. We preliminarily determine 
that Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd., has made sales in 
the United States at prices below normal value. We have also 
preliminarily determined that, based on the use of adverse facts 
available, Linyi Sanshan Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd., sold 
subject merchandise to the United States at prices below normal value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minoo Hatten or Mark Ross, Office of 
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement 3, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-1690 or (202) 482-4794, respectively.

Background

    On July 7, 2003, we published in the Federal Register the Notice of 
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews (68 FR 40242) in 
which we initiated new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on 
fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China for Jinxiang Dong Yun 
Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (Dong Yun), Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company 
(Ever Rich), Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. 
(Linshu Dading), Linyi Sanshan Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (Linyi 
Sanshan), Sunny Imp & Exp Limited (Sunny), Tancheng County Dexing Foods 
Co., Ltd. (Tancheng), and Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. (Ziyang). On 
April 20, 2004, we issued a notice rescinding the new shipper review of 
Tancheng.
    On December 19, 2003, we extended the deadline for the issuance of 
the preliminary results of the new shipper reviews by 120 days until 
April 25, 2004 (68 FR 70764).

Scope of the Order

    The products subject to the antidumping duty order are all grades 
of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not 
peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in 
water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the 
addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences 
between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.
    The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) Garlic 
that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not 
exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed.
    The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and 
for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 
0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. In order to 
be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the 
HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and 
primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) to that 
effect.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), we verified information provided by respondents using 
standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
producers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial 
records, and the selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results for Linshu Dading and 
Linyi Sanshan are outlined in the public versions of the verification 
reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-
099 of the main Department of Commerce building. With respect to Dong 
Yun, Ever Rich, Sunny, and Ziyang, the verifications took place 
recently and, therefore, the reports are still pending completion and 
are not yet on file. We will issue the reports shortly after the 
issuance of these preliminary results of review and interested parties 
can comment on the applicability of the verification findings to our 
calculations.

Separate Rates

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has treated the PRC as 
a

[[Page 24124]]

non-market-economy (NME) country in all past antidumping investigations 
(see, e.g., Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 
2000), and Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000)) and in prior segments of this 
proceeding. A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless 
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to 
be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test 
established in Sparklers from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).
    For the reasons discussed in the section below titled ``The PRC-
Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available'', we have determined 
that Linyi Sanshan did not qualify for a separate rate and is deemed to 
be covered by the PRC-wide rate.
    Dong Yun, Ever Rich, Linshu Dading, Sunny, and Ziyang provided 
separate-rate information in their responses to our original and 
supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed separate-rates 
analyses to determine whether each exporter is independent from 
government control of its export activities (see Bicycles From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)).

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    Each respondent has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control including the ``Foreign Trade 
Law of the People's Republic of China'' and the ``Administrative 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the 
Registration of Legal Corporations.'' The Department has analyzed such 
PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of de jure control. 
See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 66 FR 30695, 30696 
(June 7, 2001). We have no information in this proceeding that would 
cause us to reconsider this determination.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a 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 its management; (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide at 22587.
    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 at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates.
    Dong Yun, Ever Rich, Linshu Dading, Sunny, and Ziyang reported that 
each is a limited-liability company owned by private investors. Each 
has asserted the following: (1) There is no government participation in 
setting export prices; (2) sales managers and authorized employees have 
the authority to bind sales contracts; (3) they do not have to notify 
any government authorities of management selections; (4) there are no 
restrictions on the use of export revenue; (5) each is responsible for 
financing its own losses. Dong Yun's, Ever Rich's, Linshu Dading's, 
Sunny's, and Ziyang's questionnaire responses do not suggest that 
pricing is coordinated among exporters. During our analysis of the 
information on the record we found no information indicating the 
existence of government control. Consequently, we preliminarily 
determine that Dong Yun, Ever Rich, Linshu Dading, Sunny, and Ziyang 
have met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if, in the course of an 
antidumping review, an interested party (A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or 
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, 
then the Department shall, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the 
Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    As discussed further below, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 
Act, the Department determines that the application of adverse facts 
available is warranted for respondent Linyi Sanshan. Section 
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act warrants the use of facts otherwise available 
in reaching a determination when information is provided by a 
respondent but that information cannot be verified. Linyi Sanshan's 
questionnaire responses cannot be verified.
    On March 5, 2004, we received a letter from Linyi Sanshan's counsel 
notifying us that it was withdrawing as counsel to Linyi Sanshan in the 
November 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003, new shipper review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. On March 8, 2004, 
we faxed a letter to Linyi Sanshan referring to counsel's March 5, 
2004, letter. We informed Linyi Sanshan that, as it should be aware, we 
had made plans to visit the company during the week of April 12, 2004, 
to verify the information it had submitted for the new shipper review. 
We stated that, ``{g{time} iven the advanced stage of the segment of 
the proceeding, we have minimal flexibility with the verification 
dates.'' We asked the company to ``confirm with us by close of business 
on Thursday, March 11, 2004, whether the verification can proceed as 
scheduled.'' We also stated that, ``{i{time} f we do not receive a 
response from you by March 11, 2004, we will assume that you are not 
allowing us to

[[Page 24125]]

conduct the verification as scheduled.'' On March 11, 2004, we received 
a letter from Linyi Sanshan informing us that it was preparing for 
verification. On April 1, 2004, the Department issued a verification 
outline to Linyi Sanshan. As indicated therein, the Department informed 
Linyi Sanshan that the verification of its questionnaire responses was 
scheduled for the week of April 12, 2004.
    On April 12, 2004, the verification team contacted Linyi Sanshan by 
telephone and told company officials that they planned to visit the 
company that morning. Company officials stated that they were that they 
were expecting the verification team. When the verification team 
arrived at the company after a one-hour drive from their hotel, Linyi 
Sanshan's general manager informed the verification team that Linyi 
Sanshan could not participate in the verification. See Verfication of 
the Responses of Linyi Sanshan Import & Export Trading Company, Ltd., 
in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 
People's Republic of China from Analyst to the File dated April 26, 
2004.
    As explained above, the information Linyi Sanshan submitted for 
this new shipper review cannot be verified because the company chose 
not to participate in the verification. As such, we find that, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the use of facts available is 
warranted.
    When we determine that the use of facts available is warranted, 
section 776(b) of the Act permits us to apply an adverse inference if 
we make the additional finding that ``{a respondent{time}  has failed 
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information.'' To examine whether a respondent cooperated 
by acting to the best of its ability under section 776(b) of the Act, 
the Department considers, inter alia, the accuracy and completeness of 
the submitted information and whether the respondent has hindered the 
calculation of an accurate dumping margin. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission of Review, in Part, 69 
FR 7193, 7196 (February 13, 2004). Linyi Sanshan's decision not to 
participate in the verification prevented the Department from checking 
the accuracy of the information that it submitted; therefore, the 
Department considers Linyi Shanshan to have hindered the calculation of 
an accurate dumping margin and impeded the proceeding within the 
meaning of section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Consequently, we have 
determined that the application of adverse facts available is warranted 
for respondent Linyi Sanshan.
    Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 
870 (1994). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use 
as adverse facts-available information derived from the petition, the 
final determination from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 
a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on 
the record.
    Since Linyi Sanshan chose not to participate in the verification of 
its questionnaire responses, the Department was unable to examine the 
company's eligibility for a separate rate. In the absence of verifiable 
information establishing Linyi Sanshan's eligibility for a separate 
rate, we have preliminarily determined that it is subject to the PRC-
wide rate. As adverse facts available and reflecting the determination 
that it is not eligible for a separate rate, we have assigned the PRC-
wide rate of 376.67 percent to Linyi Sanshan.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as facts 
available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to 
be both reliable and relevant. Throughout the history of this 
proceeding, the highest rate ever calculated is 376.67 percent; it is 
currently the PRC-wide rate and was calculated based on information 
contained in the petition. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 
49058, 49059 (September 26, 1994). The information contained in the 
petition was corroborated for the preliminary results of the first 
administrative review. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Partial Termination of Administrative Review, 61 FR 68229, 68230 
(December 27, 1996). Further, it was corroborated in subsequent reviews 
to the extent that the Department referred to the history of 
corroboration and found that the Department received no information 
that warranted revisiting the issue. See Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review 
and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002). 
Similarly, no information has been presented in the current review that 
calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the 
Department finds that the information is reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996) (TRBs), that it will ``consider information 
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that 
would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the 
selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the 
Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate 
margin.'' See TRBs, 61 FR at 57392. See also Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin 
in the case as best information available because the margin was based 
on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
extremely high margin). The rate used is the rate currently applicable 
to Linyi Sanshan and all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. 
Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this review that 
demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as adverse facts 
available, we determine that this rate has relevance. As the rate is 
both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. 
Therefore, for all sales of subject merchandise exported by Linyi 
Sanshan, we have applied, as adverse facts available, the 376.67 
percent margin from a prior administrative review of this order and 
have satisfied the corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of 
the Act. See Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
18439, 18441 (April 9, 2001) (employing a petition rate used as adverse 
facts available in a previous segment as adverse facts available in the 
current review).

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for responsive 
companies we have used the export-price methodology when the first sale 
to an unaffiliated purchaser was made outside the United States before 
importation of the

[[Page 24126]]

merchandise into the United States. We calculated the export price 
based on prices from Dong Yun, Ever Rich, Linshu Dading, Sunny, and 
Ziyang to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the gross unit price to account for movement expenses 
such as foreign inland freight, international freight, customs duties, 
and brokerage and handling. Because certain domestic charges, such as 
those for foreign inland freight, were provided by NME companies, we 
valued those charges based on surrogate rates from India. See 
``Memorandum to the File'' regarding the factors valuation for the 
preliminary results of the new shipper reviews (April 26, 2004) (FOP 
Memorandum).
    For a more detailed explanation of the company-specific adjustments 
that we made in the calculation of the dumping margins for these 
preliminary results, see the company-specific preliminary results 
analysis memoranda dated April 26, 2004.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

    When investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) 
of the Act directs the Department to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a 
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
use, to the extent practicable, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Factor Valuations'' 
section below.
    The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development. See ``Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill'' 
regarding the request for a list of surrogate countries (August 25, 
2003). In addition to being among the countries comparable to the PRC 
in economic development, India is a significant producer of the subject 
merchandise. We have used India as the surrogate country and, 
accordingly, have calculated normal value using Indian prices to value 
the PRC producers' factors of production, when available and 
appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available 
information. See the April 26, 2004, ``Memorandum to the File'' 
regarding the selection of a surrogate country.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of these new shipper reviews, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value the factors of production until 20 days 
following the date of publication of these preliminary results.

2. Factors of Production

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the normal value using a factors-of-production methodology if 
(1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country and (2) the 
information does not permit the calculation of normal value using home-
market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 
773(a) of the Act. Factors of production include the following 
elements: (1) Hours of labor required, (2) quantities of raw materials 
employed, (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and (4) 
representative capital costs. We used factors of production reported by 
the respondents for materials, energy, labor, and packing. We valued 
all the input factors using publicly available information, as 
discussed in the ``Surrogate Country'' and ``Factor Valuations'' 
sections of this notice.

3. Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal 
value based on factors of production reported by the respondents for 
the period of review. To calculate normal value, we multiplied the 
reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available surrogate 
values from India. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, 
we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them 
delivered prices. We calculated these freight costs based on the 
shortest reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory 
and Indian surrogate values. This adjustment is in accordance with the 
decision in Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-08 
(CAFC 1997). For a detailed description of all the surrogate values 
used, see the FOP Memorandum.
    For those Indian rupee values not contemporaneous with the period 
of review, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices for 
India published in the International Monetary Fund's International 
Financial Statistics.
    Surrogate-value data or sources to obtain such data were obtained 
from the petitioners, the respondents, and Departmental research.
    Except as specified below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the World Trade Atlas 
Trade Information System (Internet Version 4.3e) (World Trade Atlas). 
The source of these values, contemporaneous with the period of review, 
was the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics 
of the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry. We valued garlic seed 
based on pricing data from the NHRDF News Letter, published by India's 
National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation. We valued 
diesel fuel and electricity based on data from the International Energy 
Agency's Energy Prices & Taxes: Quarterly Statistics (Third Quarter, 
2003). We valued water using the averages of municipal water rates from 
Asian Development Bank's Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and 
Pacific Region (October 1997).
    The respondents reported packing inputs consisting of mesh bags, 
cartons, plastic bands, and tape. All of these inputs were valued using 
import data from the World Trade Atlas that covered the period of 
review.
    For labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 
regression-based wage rate that appears on the website for Import 
Administration (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.htm). The 
source of the wage-rate data for the Import Administration's website is 
the International Labor Organization's Yearbook of Labour Statistics 
2002 (Geneva, 2002), chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
    The respondents claimed an adjustment for revenue earned on the 
sale of garlic sprouts. We find that sprouts are a by-product of garlic 
and deducted an offset amount from normal value. As a surrogate value 
for the sale of sprouts in the PRC, we used an average of Indian 
wholesale prices for green onions published by the Azadpur Agricultural 
Produce Marketing Committee.
    We valued the truck rate based on an average of truck rates that 
were published in the Indian publication Chemical Weekly during the 
period of review. We valued cold storage at a facility away from the 
production facility prior to shipment using a rate published in an 
article from Dawn Wire Service. We valued foreign brokerage and 
handling charges based on a value calculated for the LTFV investigation 
of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

[[Page 24127]]

products from India. For ocean freight, we used a ranged price from the 
public version of a respondent's submission.
    As discussed in the FOP Memorandum, the respondents and the 
petitioners submitted the publicly available financial information of 
six companies. We concluded that the financial information of four of 
the companies reflected costs incurred for highly processed food 
products and that this processing was not comparable with the 
operations of the respondent garlic companies. We concluded that the 
financial information for a fifth company was not representative of the 
financial experiences of the respondent companies because this company 
did not grow the agricultural products that it sold and, in some cases, 
performed no processing on these products. We found that the financial 
information of a tea company was most representative of the financial 
experiences of the respondent companies because it produced and 
processed a product that was not highly processed or preserved prior to 
its sale. Thus, to value factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative expenses, and profit, we used rates based on data taken 
from the 2001/2002 financial statements of Parry Agro Industries 
Limited.

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Reviews

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period November 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
              Grower and exporter combinations                percentage
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grown by Pizhou Guangda Import and Export Co., Ltd. and             0.00
 Exported by Ever Rich Trade Company.......................
Grown by Jinxing Jinda Agriculture Industrial & Trading             0.00
 Company Ltd. and Exported by Linshu Dading Private
 Agricultural Products Co., Ltd............................
Grown and Exported by Linyi Sanshan Import & Export Trading       376.67
 Co., Ltd..................................................
Grown and Exported by Sunny Import and Export Ltd..........         0.00
Grown and Exported by Taian Ziyang Food Company, Ltd.......         0.00
Grown and Exported by Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage           26.29
 Co., Ltd..................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least six copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than one week after the issuance of the Department's last 
verification report in these reviews. The Department will notify all 
parties of the applicable briefing schedule. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs are due no later than five days after 
the submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of 
contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any 
briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal 
briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested 
party. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the 
hearing three days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal 
briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 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, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date 
of publication of the preliminary results of these reviews in the 
Federal Register. Requests should contain the following information: 
(1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    The Department will publish the final results of these new shipper 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
case or rebuttal briefs, within 90 days of publication of this notice. 
See 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i)(1).

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of these new shipper reviews, the Department will 
determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP upon completion of these reviews. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP 
to assess the antidumping duties applicable to sales of the subject 
merchandise on each of the entries of each exporters' importer/customer 
during the period of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of the new shipper reviews for 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject 
merchandise grown by Pizhou Guangda Import and Export Co., Ltd., and 
exported by Ever Rich Trade Company, grown by Jinxing Jinda Agriculture 
Industrial & Trading Company Ltd., and exported by Linshu Dading 
Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd., or grown and exported by Linyi 
Sanshan Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd., Sunny Import and Export, 
Ltd., Taian Ziyang Food Company, Ltd., and Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing 
Storage Co., Ltd., the cash-deposit rate will be that established in 
the final results of these reviews; (2) for all other subject 
merchandise exported by Ever Rich Trade Company, Linshu Dading Private 
Agricultural Products Co., Ltd., Linyi Sanshan Import & Export Trading 
Co., Ltd., Sunny Import and Export, Ltd., Taian Ziyang Food Company, 
Ltd., and Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd., the cash-
deposit rate will be the PRC countrywide rate, which is 376.67 percent; 
(3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate 
will be the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent; (4) for all non-PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    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

[[Page 24128]]

duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the period 
of these reviews. 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of reviews 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 26, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-9998 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P