[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47869-47875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-337-806]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red 
Raspberries From Chile

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries 
from Chile with respect to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.; Santiago Comercio 
Exterior Exportaciones Limitada; and Uren Chile, S.A. We are rescinding 
the administrative review with respect to Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. 
This review covers sales of individually quick frozen red raspberries 
to the United States during the period December 31, 2001, through June 
30, 2003.
    We preliminarily find that, during the period of review, sales of 
individually quick frozen red raspberries were made below normal value. 
If the preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective August 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle, Ryan Langan, or Blanche 
Ziv, Office 1, 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-
1503, (202) 482-2613, and (202) 482-4207, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 2, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published in the Federal Register a notice of the opportunity to 
request an administrative review in the above-cited segment of the 
antidumping duty proceeding. See 68 FR 39511. We received a timely 
filed request for review of 51 companies from the Pacific Northwest 
Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual 
members, Curt Maberry Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., Maberry Packing, and 
Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, ``petitioners''). We also received 
timely filed requests for review from Fruticola Olmue, S.A. 
(``Olmue''); Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda. 
(``SANCO''); and Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. (``Vital Berry'').\1\ On 
August 22, 2003, we initiated an administrative review of the 51 
companies. See 68 FR 50750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These three companies were included in the petitioners' 
request for review of 51 companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 16, 2003, the Department determined that it was not 
practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of 
the 51 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we 
selected the following seven companies as respondents in this review: 
Arlavan, S.A.; C y C Group, S.A.; Olmue; SANCO; Uren Chile, S.A. 
(``Uren''); Valles Andinos, S.A.; and Vital Berry. See October 16, 
2003, memorandum, ``Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from 
Chile: Respondent Selection,'' which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 in the main Department building.
    On October 17, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the companies listed above. We received responses 
from the seven companies in November and December 2003.
    On January 5, 2004, we received a timely filed submission from the 
petitioners withdrawing their request for review for all of the 
companies for which they had requested an administrative review, except 
Uren. Because the petitioners were the only parties to request an 
administrative review for all companies except Olmue, SANCO, and Vital 
Berry, on January 15, 2004, we rescinded the administrative review with 
respect to all of the 51 companies mentioned above except Olmue, SANCO, 
Uren, and Vital Berry, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) (2003). 
See 69 FR 2330.
    On January 16, 2004, the petitioners submitted timely allegations 
that Olmue, SANCO, Uren, and Vital Berry made sales below the cost of 
production (``COP'') during the period of review (``POR'').
    On January 21, 2004, Vital Berry withdrew its request for an 
administrative review. Since the petitioners had earlier withdrawn 
their request for review of Vital Berry and we did not receive any 
objections to Vital Berry's request for withdrawal, we are rescinding 
the administrative review with respect to Vital Berry and publishing 
notice of this rescission in the Federal Register, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(4), at this time. See January 29, 2004, memorandum, 
``Partial Rescission of Administrative Review with Respect to Vital 
Berry Marketing, S.A.,'' which is on file in the CRU.
    On February 18, 2004, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended, effective January 1, 1995 by the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``the Act''), we initiated investigations to determine 
whether SANCO and Uren made comparison market sales during the POR at 
prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act 
because we found that the petitioners' January 16, 2004, allegations 
provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the 
comparison market were made at prices below the COP. See February 18, 
2004, memorandum, ``Allegation of Sales Below Cost of Production for 
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones;'' February 18, 2004, 
memorandum, ``Allegation of Sales Below Cost of Production for Uren 
Chile,'' which are on file in the CRU.

[[Page 47870]]

Because we disregarded below cost sales by Olmue to the same comparison 
market in the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation 
(the most recently completed segment of the proceeding), we consider 
that this provides ``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' that 
Olmue made sales to France of the subject merchandise at below-cost 
prices during the POR. Thus, we did not analyze the petitioners' sales-
below-cost allegations with respect to Olmue. On February 19, 2004, we 
notified SANCO and Uren that they must respond to section D of the 
antidumping duty questionnaire.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Olmue, SANCO, and Uren 
from February through April 2004. We received timely filed responses.
    On March 9, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than July 30, 2004, in accordance 
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See 69 
FR 10981.
    On April 13, 2004, we sent a questionnaire to Uren's largest 
supplier of purchased IQF red raspberries requesting COP information. 
On May 12, 2004, we received a letter from the supplier stating that it 
could not respond to the Department's questionnaire. For further 
discussion, see the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' section below.
    We conducted verification of SANCO from May 27 through June 2, 
2004.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are imports of individually 
quick frozen (``IQF'') whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with 
or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety, 
grade, size or horticulture method (e.g., organic or not), the size of 
the container in which packed, or the method of packing. The scope of 
the order excludes fresh red raspberries and block frozen red 
raspberries (i.e., puree, straight pack, juice stock, and juice 
concentrate).
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable 
under 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the 
United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export 
price (``EP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2), we compared individual EPs to 
weighted-average NVs, which were calculated in accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by Olmue, SANCO, and Uren (collectively, 
``respondents'') in the comparison market during the POR that fit the 
description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice to be 
foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales of identical 
merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of 
trade, where possible. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the comparison 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. 
To determine the appropriate product comparisons, we considered the 
following physical characteristics of the products in order of 
importance: Grade, variety, form, cultivation method, and additives.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we calculated EP in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the 
exporter or producer outside the United States and because constructed 
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on 
packed ex-factory, CIF, C&F, FOB, and delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We identified the correct starting 
price by adjusting the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for 
interest revenue and billing adjustments. We made deductions from the 
starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, 
domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, pre-sale warehousing 
expenses, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, 
U.S. inland freight, and other U.S. transportation expenses.
    To calculate EP, we relied upon the data submitted by the 
respondents, except as noted below:
Olmue
    For certain sales, Olmue did not report payment dates because 
payment is still pending. For those sales for which payment has not yet 
been received, we set the payment date equal to the date of the 
preliminary results. We recalculated Olmue's imputed credit expenses 
using the revised payment dates, where applicable, and the gross unit 
price adjusted for pricing adjustments. For further discussion, see 
July 29, 2004, memorandum, ``Calculations for the Preliminary Results 
for Fruticola Olmue, S.A.'' (``Olmue Calculation Memorandum''), which 
is on file in the CRU.
SANCO
    For certain sales, we revised SANCO's reported date of sale, gross 
unit price, warehousing expenses, and direct selling expenses based on 
information obtained at verification. We also revised SANCO's indirect 
selling expenses ratio and, accordingly, recalculated indirect selling 
expenses. In addition, we recalculated imputed credit expenses because 
SANCO revised its date of sale but did not revise its reported credit 
expenses. See July 19, 2004, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of IQF Red Raspberries from Chile: Verification Report-SANCO'' (``SANCO 
Verification Report'') at 2, 11-13, and 15-17, which is on file in the 
CRU. For further discussion, see July 29, 2004, memorandum, 
``Calculations for the Preliminary Results for Santiago Comercio 
Exterior Exportaciones Limitada'' (``SANCO Calculation Memorandum''), 
which is on file in the CRU.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    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 sales of the 
foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    Olmue, SANCO, and Uren reported that their home market sales of IQF 
red raspberries during the POR were less than five percent of their 
sales of IQF red raspberries in the United States. Therefore, none of 
the respondents had a viable home market for purposes of calculating 
normal value. SANCO and Uren reported that the United Kingdom was their 
largest viable third country market, and Olmue reported that France was 
its largest viable third country market. Accordingly, SANCO and Uren

[[Page 47871]]

reported their sales to the United Kingdom, and Olmue reported its 
sales to France for purposes of calculating NV.

B. Cost of Production

1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
(``G&A'') expenses, financial expenses, and comparison market packing 
costs, where appropriate. See infra ``Test of Comparison Market Sales 
Prices'' for a discussion of the treatment of comparison market selling 
expenses.
    We relied on the COP data submitted by the respondents, except 
where noted below:
Olmue
    We used Olmue's G&A expenses for fiscal year 2002, the fiscal year 
which most closely corresponds to the POR. We also used the fiscal year 
2002 financial expenses for the financial expense ratio. In addition, 
we revised Olmue's reported financial expenses to include the full 
portion of the monetary correction reported in Olmue's financial 
statements and disallowed the portion of the reported financial 
expenses offset related to interest earned on receivables. For further 
discussion, see Olmue Calculation Memorandum.
    Olmue claimed a start-up adjustment for its new IQF tunnel and 
various updates to its existing plant. Section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the 
Act sets forth the criteria that a respondent must meet in order for 
the Department to grant an adjustment for startup operations: (I) ``a 
producer is using new production facilities or producing a new product 
that requires substantial additional investment, and (II) production 
levels are limited by technical factors associated with the initial 
phase of commercial production.'' For purposes of the first criterion, 
when a new facility is not constructed, the Department may consider a 
``new production facility'' to exist when there has been 
``substantially complete retooling of an existing plant'' which 
``involves the replacement of nearly all production machinery or the 
equivalent rebuilding of existing machinery.'' See Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc No. 103-
316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'') at 836.
    Olmue stated in its questionnaire response that its facility is not 
new; rather, Olmue expanded the size and capacity of its existing 
facility. Olmue explained that it added a new IQF tunnel, 
``reinstalled'' the same tunnel from the previous season, and increased 
its storage and processing capacity. Olmue claims that these additions 
and improvements to its existing facility were a major undertaking 
tantamount to the construction of a new facility. Thus, Olmue claims 
that it is entitled to a start-up adjustment.
    We agree that Olmue added a new IQF tunnel and some new storage and 
processing equipment during the POR. However, Olmue has not shown that 
the existing facilities (e.g., ``reinstalled'' IQF tunnel) underwent a 
``substantially complete retooling,'' which, as defined by the SAA, 
``involves the replacement of nearly all production machinery or the 
equivalent rebuilding of existing machinery.'' See SAA at 836. Olmue 
has provided no information which would indicate that its existing 
processing and storage areas were replaced or completely rebuilt. 
Rather, when asked in a supplemental questionnaire, Olmue simply 
described the new processing and storage equipment installed to 
accommodate the increased capacity expected from the new IQF tunnel. In 
addition, concerning the existing IQF tunnel, Olmue merely stated that 
it was ``experimenting'' with the tunnel which was the ``same tunnel'' 
that was ``reinstalled from the previous season.'' See Olmue's April 5, 
2004, supplemental section D questionnaire response at 11 {emphasis 
added{time} . Thus, the information on the record indicates that Olmue 
did not completely retool or rebuild its existing machinery and 
facilities.
    Instead, the record indicates that Olmue merely increased its 
capacity by adding new machinery for another production line within its 
existing production facility. The SAA states that the Department ``will 
not consider an expansion of the capacity of an existing production 
line to be a startup operation unless the expansion of the capacity 
constitutes such a major undertaking that it requires the construction 
of a new facility* * *'' See SAA at 836. As discussed above, Olmue did 
not build a new facility and has not provided evidence that its current 
facility has been substantially retooled or rebuilt. We find that the 
changes Olmue made to its existing production facility do not meet the 
first criterion of the statutory requirement of section 
773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act for a start-up adjustment. Therefore, the 
Department did not make a start-up adjustment when calculating Olmue's 
COP.
SANCO
    We revised direct materials, direct labor, variable overhead, and 
fixed overhead based on information obtained at verification. See SANCO 
Verification Report at 19-23. We also recalculated SANCO's G&A and 
financial expenses using the revised total cost of manufacture. For 
further discussion, see SANCO Calculation Memorandum.
Uren
    Uren was a producer of IQF red raspberries through a tolling 
arrangement and also a reseller of the subject merchandise. For 
merchandise produced through Uren's tolling arrangement, we based the 
COP on the price Uren paid for the fresh berries from its unaffiliated 
supplier and the price Uren paid for the processing, plus amounts for 
G&A expenses and financial expenses. For IQF raspberries not produced 
by Uren, we requested COP data from the largest of Uren's finished 
product suppliers. Uren's supplier did not provide the COP information 
requested. For IQF raspberries obtained from the unresponsive supplier, 
we based the COP on the highest cost reported by Uren for purchases of 
finished product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and financial expenses. 
For the remaining IQF raspberries not produced by Uren, we based the 
COP on Uren's production cost (i.e., Uren's tolling costs). For further 
discussion, see the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' section below.
    We reallocated certain reported indirect selling expenses to Uren's 
reported G&A expenses. For further discussion, see July 29, 2004, 
memorandum, ``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Uren Chile 
S.A.'' (``Uren Calculation Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested; 
(B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or 
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to 
section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this

[[Page 47872]]

title.\2\ Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse 
inferences may be used when a party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Where the Department determines that a response to a request 
for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of 
the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party 
submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide 
that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If 
the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time 
limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, 
disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as 
appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department 
``shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an 
interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not 
meet all the applicable requirements established by the 
administering authority'' if the information is timely, can be 
verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if 
the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing 
the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute 
requires the Department to use the information, if it can do so 
without undue difficulties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the background section above, on February 18, 2004, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Uren made 
comparison market sales during the POR at prices below the COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We received a response from 
Uren to section D of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire on 
April 5, 2004. In its response, Uren reported two different scenarios 
depicting its costs: (1) Its acquisition cost for finished subject 
merchandise (i.e., Uren acted as a reseller of the subject 
merchandise); and (2) its cost for purchases of fresh fruit from 
unaffiliated parties and its cost for having an unaffiliated 
subcontractor process the fruit. In the second scenario, Uren is the 
producer of the tolled merchandise pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(h).
    Where the sale to an exporter or reseller is finished subject 
merchandise, the Department's practice is to rely on the COP of the 
producer. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value; Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001) and 
accompanying Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1. Consistent with our 
practice regarding resales of subject merchandise, we requested COP 
data from Uren's largest supplier on April 13, 2004.\3\ On May 12, 
2004, we received a letter from the supplier stating, among other 
things, that it does not export subject merchandise and that it did not 
have the resources to respond to the Department's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Uren had multiple suppliers of IQF raspberries during the 
POR. We requested COP information from Uren's largest supplier only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department 
finds that ``an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' an 
adverse inference may be used in determining the facts otherwise 
available. Because Uren's supplier, which, as a producer of subject 
merchandise, is an interested party in this proceeding, did not act to 
the best of its ability by failing to provide the COP information 
requested by the Department, we preliminarily find that it is 
appropriate to make an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act with respect to the finished berries purchased from that 
supplier. As adverse facts available for purchases of finished berries 
from Uren's largest supplier, because we did not have any COP 
information from any producer of finished berries supplying Uren, we 
used the highest of any cost reported by Uren, plus amounts for G&A 
expenses and financial expenses, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act. In this case, the highest cost reported on the record was a 
purchase price by Uren for finished berries. As noted above, when 
calculating COP, the Department's practice is to disregard acquisition 
costs in favor of the COP of the producer. However, based on our 
comparison of the available cost information in this review, we found 
that Uren's highest reported acquisition cost for purchases of finished 
berries was the highest cost on the record of this proceeding and, 
therefore, appropriate as an adverse surrogate for the actual cost of 
production.
    As noted above, the Department only requested COP information from 
Uren's largest supplier of finished berries. The remaining suppliers of 
finished berries were not asked to provide cost data for the POR and, 
thus, cannot be found to have been non-cooperative. Therefore, for IQF 
berries purchased from the remaining suppliers, we applied neutral 
facts available for the preliminary results, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. As neutral facts available, we have 
used Uren's reported average COP from its tolled merchandise, plus 
amounts for G&A expenses and financial expenses.
    a. Test of Comparison Market Prices. On a product-specific basis, 
we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether sales had been 
made at prices below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any 
applicable billing adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling 
expenses, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. 
In determining whether to disregard comparison market sales made at 
prices below the 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 in substantial quantities and (2) at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
    b. Results of the COP Test. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given 
product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we do not 
disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine 
that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine 
that the below-cost sales represent ``substantial quantities'' within 
an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made 
at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of 
the Act.
    We found that, for Olmue, SANCO and Uren, for certain specific 
products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at 
prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In 
addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore 
excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis 
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    For U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
comparable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade 
(e.g., sales that passed the cost test), we compared those sales to 
constructed value (``CV''), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act.

C. Calculation of Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, when 
sales of comparison products could not be found, either because there 
were no sales of a comparable product or all

[[Page 47873]]

sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on 
CV.
    In accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication 
for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A 
expenses, financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We made 
the same adjustments to the CV costs as described in the ``Calculation 
of COP'' section of this notice. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling expenses, G&A expenses, and 
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country.

D. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) 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 EP. 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). 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''),\4\ including selling 
functions,\5\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final 
user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have 
many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along 
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each 
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the 
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \5\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either comparison market or third country prices \6\),we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable 
to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the 
comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare 
the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In 
comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where 
available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Olmue
    Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in 
each market and claimed that its sales in both markets were at the same 
LOT. Therefore, Olmue did not request an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its 
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including 
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities 
performed. Olmue reported that it sold to distributors and end-users in 
the third country and to traders, distributors, end-users, and 
retailers in the United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar 
selling activities regardless of the customer category. Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that Olmue sold to a single LOT in the 
comparison and U.S. markets. Moreover, there was only a minor 
difference in the selling activities between the two markets. In the 
U.S. market, Olmue received interest revenue on several sales to one 
customer. Otherwise, sales in both markets were direct shipments to 
customers from the plant. Olmue also did not grant rebates or 
discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or 
incur advertising expenses in either the third country or U.S. market. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that Olmue's sales 
in the comparison and U.S. markets were made at the same LOT.
SANCO
    SANCO reported that it had a single LOT in the comparison and U.S. 
markets and that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. 
Therefore, SANCO has not requested an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by SANCO regarding its 
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including 
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities 
performed. SANCO reported two channels of distribution in each market. 
In channel one in the U.S. market, the customer is the importer of 
record and arranges for customs entry and pays the customs duties. In 
channel two in the U.S. market, SANCO is the importer of record and 
arranges for customs entry and pays the customs duties. SANCO sells to 
the same type of customer in both channels of trade. Except for the 
differences regarding the entry of the merchandise, there are no 
differences in the selling activities for these two channels of 
distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is a 
single LOT in the U.S. market.
    Similarly, in channel one in the third country market, SANCO ships 
raspberries directly from the plant to the customer. In channel two in 
the third country market, SANCO warehouses the raspberries before they 
are shipped to the customer. SANCO sells to the same type of customer 
in both channels of distribution. Although these two channels of 
distribution differ slightly in terms of processing activity (i.e., 
warehousing), the selling activities undertaken by SANCO are otherwise 
identical. Therefore, we find a single LOT in SANCO's third country 
market.
    Comparing sales in SANCO's two markets, there is no indication that 
there were significantly different selling activities or sales process 
activities. SANCO also did not grant rebates or discounts, provide 
technical services or post-sale warehousing, or incur advertising 
expenses on either U.S. or third country sales.
    Therefore, the Department finds that a single LOT exists in both 
the U.S. and third country markets, and that SANCO's sales in the U.S. 
and third country markets are made at the same LOT.
Uren
    Uren reported selling to a single customer category through two 
channels of distribution in the comparison market: (1) Direct delivery 
sales from Chile to the customer (channel 1); and (2) sales out of 
inventory in the United Kingdom (channel 2). We examined these channels 
reported by Uren and found that they were similar with respect to 
freight services and warranty service. However, we found that they 
varied significantly with respect to sales process (e.g., customer 
visits, forecasting services, re-sorting, etc.), and warehousing/
inventory maintenance. Based on our overall analysis of the comparison 
market, we preliminarily find that channel 1 and channel 2 constitute 
distinct LOTs, LOTH 1 and LOTH 2, respectively.

[[Page 47874]]

    In the U.S. market, Uren reported sales to processors and trading 
companies/resellers through a single channel of distribution, direct 
sales. Sales to these two customer categories through this channel of 
distribution were similar with respect to sales process, warehouse/
inventory maintenance and warranty service, and differed only slightly 
with respect to freight services. Therefore, we preliminarily find that 
Uren had a single LOT for its U.S. sales.
    When we compare Uren's U.S. LOT to the comparison market LOTs, we 
find that the LOT in the United States was similar to the comparison 
market LOTH 1 but differed considerably from the comparison market LOTH 
2 with respect to sales process and warehouse/inventory maintenance. 
Consequently, we matched Uren's U.S. sales to sales LOTH 1 in the 
comparison market. Where no matches at the same LOT were possible, we 
matched to sales in LOTH 2 and, where appropriate because there was a 
pattern of consistent price differences between different LOTs, made an 
LOT adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-factory, FOB, C&F, and delivered 
prices to unaffiliated customers in the comparison market. We 
identified the starting price and made adjustments for billing 
adjustments, where appropriate. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses, 
including domestic inland freight, pre-sale warehousing expenses, 
international freight, marine insurance, third country duties, and 
third country inland freight, where applicable. In addition, we made 
adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit 
expenses, and other direct selling expenses, where appropriate. For 
Olmue, we also made adjustments, where appropriate, for indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the comparison market or the United States 
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the 
other (the commission offset), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs 
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the 
merchandise (the ``DIFMER'' adjustment), where applicable, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    To calculate NV, we relied upon the data submitted by the 
respondents, except as noted below:
Olmue
    We recalculated Olmue's imputed credit expenses using the gross 
unit price adjusted for pricing adjustments. For further discussion, 
see Olmue Calculation Memorandum.
SANCO
    For certain sales, we revised SANCO's reported date of sale, 
warehousing expenses, and international freight expenses based on 
information obtained at verification. We also revised SANCO's indirect 
selling expense ratio and, accordingly, recalculated indirect selling 
expenses. In addition, we recalculated imputed credit expenses because 
SANCO revised its date of sale but did not revise its reported credit 
expenses. See SANCO Verification Report at 2, 11-13, and 15-17. For 
further discussion, see SANCO Calculation Memorandum.
Uren
    We reallocated certain indirect selling expenses to G&A expenses. 
For further discussion, see Uren Calculation Memorandum.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV 
for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we added 
U.S. packing costs.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of 
the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. 
sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping 
margins:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-average margin
           Exporter/manufacturer                     percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruticola Olmue, S.A......................  1.46
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones,   0.25 (de minimis)
 Ltda.
Uren Chile, S.A...........................  13.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each 
respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative 
review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the 
final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on 
appropriate entries.
    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period 
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculate importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this 
amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or customer). 
Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater 
than de minimis and the respondent has reported reliable entered 
values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the 
importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an 
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de 
minimis and we do not have entered values, we calculate a per-unit 
assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of 
publication of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of IQF red raspberries from Chile entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review, except if a 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) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a 
previous

[[Page 47875]]

review or the original LTFV investigation, 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, the 
previous review, or the original 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 and/or exporters of this 
merchandise, shall be 6.33 percent, the ``all others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation (see 67 FR 45460, July 9, 2002).
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary 
results.

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 in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 29, 2004.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-17938 Filed 8-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P