[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51630-51632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-19140]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-813]


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

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On March 8, 2004, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the fourth administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. The 
review covers five manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is 
February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 20, 2004.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The review covers five manufacturers/exporters: Agro Dutch 
Industries Ltd. (``Agro Dutch''), Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. (``Dinesh 
Agro''), Premier Mushroom Farms (``Premier''), Saptarishi Agro 
Industries, Ltd. (``Saptarishi Agro''), and Weikfield Agro Products 
Ltd. (``Weikfield''). The period of review is February 1, 2002, through 
January 31, 2003.
    On March 8, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published the preliminary results of the fourth administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India 
(69 FR 10659) (``Preliminary Results''). We invited parties to comment 
on the preliminary results of review. On March 22, 2004, we received a 
request for a public hearing from the petitioner.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom 
Trade which includes the American Mushroom Institute and the 
following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc.; Modern Mushroom 
Farms, Inc.; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.; Mount Laurel Canning Corp.; 
Mushrooms Canning Company; Southwood Farms; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc.; 
and United Canning Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 5, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the postponement of the final results of the administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India 
(69 FR 25063). We conducted a verification of Agro Dutch's sales data 
from May 18 through May 21, 2004. At our request, Agro Dutch submitted 
revised sales data bases on June 2, 2004, which incorporated revisions 
resulting from the verification.
    We received case briefs from Weikfield on June 7, 2004, (brief 
dated June 2, 2004), and the petitioner, Agro Dutch, and Premier on 
June 10, 2004. The petitioner and Agro Dutch filed rebuttal briefs on 
June 17, 2004. Agro Dutch withdrew its rebuttal brief on June 22, 2004, 
and submitted a replacement brief on June 24, 2004.\2\ On June 28, 
2004, the petitioner withdrew its request for a public hearing. We have 
conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The circumstances regarding the withdrawal and replacement 
of the Agro Dutch rebuttal brief are discussed in a June 28, 2004, 
memorandum to the file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain preserved mushrooms, 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
preserved mushrooms covered under the order are the species Agaricus 
bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Preserved mushrooms'' refer to 
mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, 
and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and 
heated in containers including but not limited to cans or glass jars in 
a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water,

[[Page 51631]]

brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported 
whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope 
of the order are ``brined'' mushrooms, which are presalted and packed 
in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further 
processing.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) All 
other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and 
chilled mushrooms, including ``refrigerated'' or ``quick blanched 
mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) 
``marinated,'' ``acidified'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms, which are 
prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may 
contain oil or other additives.
    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 
2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, neither Dinesh Agro nor 
Saptarishi Agro submitted a response to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire. Because of Dinesh Agro's and Saptarishi Agro's refusal 
to cooperate in this review, we determined that the application of 
facts available is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the 
Act. Further, we determined that it was appropriate to make adverse 
inferences in applying facts available, in accordance with section 
776(b) of the Act. As adverse facts available, we assigned to exports 
of the subject merchandise produced by Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro 
the rate of 66.24 percent, the highest rate calculated for any 
cooperative respondent in the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation or the three previous administrative reviews. We have 
received no comments on this determination, nor have we found any basis 
to change this determination. Accordingly, we have applied the adverse 
facts available rates of 66.24 percent to the exports of the subject 
merchandise produced by Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro for the POR.

Duty Absorption

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department 
preliminarily determined that antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the producer or exporter during the POR on those sales for which the 
respondent was the importer of record, in accordance with section 
751(a)(4) of the Act, because none of the respondents responded to the 
Department's request for evidence that the unaffiliated purchaser will 
pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. 
Premier was the importer of record for all of its sales to the United 
States, while Agro Dutch and Weikfield were the importers of record for 
most of their respective U.S. sales. In addition, we found duty 
absorption for both Dinesh Agro and Saptarishi Agro on all of their 
sales, based on adverse facts available, because neither company 
responded to the Department's questionnaire.
    As discussed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (``Decision 
Memo'') from Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, dated August 13, 2004, at Comment 5, Agro Dutch 
contended that, during verification, the Department obtained documents 
which demonstrated that Agro Dutch did not absorb the duties. We 
disagree with Agro Dutch's contention and find no basis to change this 
determination for Agro Dutch or any of the other respondents. 
Accordingly, we find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by the 
producer or exporter during the POR on those sales for which the 
respondent was the importer of record.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the 
Decision Memo, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the 
issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of 
which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised 
in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public 
memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of 
the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes From the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes to the margin calculations, including:
    1. We relied on the revised Israeli and U.S. sales data bases 
submitted by Agro Dutch on June 2, 2004, which incorporated its 
verification revisions and corrections. We also made additional data 
corrections based on our verification findings.
    2. In using the revised data bases, we found that all of Agro 
Dutch's sales to Israel were below the COP in the final results. 
Therefore, we compared all of Agro Dutch's U.S. sales to constructed 
value (``CV''). Accordingly, we relied on the weighted-average selling 
expenses and profit ratios derived from Premier's and Weikfield's final 
results calculations to calculate CV for Agro Dutch.
    3. We revised our calculation of indirect selling expenses incurred 
on U.S. sales for returned merchandise to include the costs of 
returning all of the merchandise back to India, rather than limiting 
the expense to the un-resold portion of the returned products as we did 
in the preliminary results.
    4. We corrected the calculation of Agro Dutch's normal value in the 
comparison market and margin calculation programs to deduct third-
country imputed credit expenses from the gross unit price, and to apply 
the commission offset based on CV selling expenses in the price-to-CV 
comparisons.
    5. We corrected the Agro Dutch margin calculation program to make 
the proper deduction for third-country commission expenses.
    6. We corrected the Premier margin calculation program to treat 
inventory carrying costs on U.S. sales as an Indian rupee expense, 
rather than a U.S. dollar expense.
    7. We corrected the calculation of Premier's normal value to deduct 
properly home market commissions from the gross unit price.
    8. We corrected the calculation of Weikfield's normal value to 
deduct home market discounts and commissions paid to unaffiliated 
parties from the gross unit price in the cost of production test and 
the calculation of normal value.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd...................................       34.57
Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd...................................       66.24
Premier Mushroom Farms......................................       18.30
Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd.............................       66.24
Weikfield Agro Products Ltd.................................        9.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 51632]]

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department 
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies 
subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of 
these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), 
we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis 
(i.e., is not less than 0.50 percent). With respect to Agro Dutch and 
Premier, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the 
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for 
all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total 
entered value of the sales examined. For Weikfield, we do not have the 
actual entered value of its sales because this respondent is not the 
importer of record for some of its U.S. sales. Accordingly, we 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all of Weikfield's U.S. sales examined 
and dividing the respective amount by the total quantity of the sales 
examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de 
minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based 
on export prices.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the 
cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 11.30 percent. This rate is the ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We 
are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 13, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--List of Issues

Company-Specific Comments

Agro Dutch

Comment 1: Treatment of Agro Dutch's Expenses for Returned Shipments 
as Direct or Indirect Expenses
Comment 2: Treatment of Inspection Expenses
Comment 3: Selling Expenses and Profit Ratio for Agro Dutch 
Constructed Value
Comment 4: Corrections to the Calculation of Agro Dutch Normal Value
Comment 5: Duty Absorption on Agro Dutch's Sales

Premier

Comment 6: Errors in Premier Margin Calculation

Weikfield

Comment 7: Corrections to Calcualtion of Weikfield Normal Value >
[FR Doc. 04-19140 Filed 8-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P