[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6618-6620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-515]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-337-806]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 6, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red 
raspberries from Chile. We gave interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on the preliminary results and have made certain changes for 
the final results. We find that certain companies reviewed sold 
individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile in the United 
States below normal value during the period December 31, 2001, through 
June 30, 2003.

DATES: Effective Date: February 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or Cole Kyle, Office 1, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813 
and (202) 482-1503, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 6, 2004, the Department published the Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From 
Chile, 69 FR 47869 (August 6, 2004) (``Preliminary Results'') in the 
Federal Register.
    On September 7, 2004, we received case briefs from The Pacific 
Northwest Berry Association and each of its individual members, Curt 
Maberry Farm, Enfield Farms, Inc., Maberry Packing, and Rader Farms, 
Inc. (collectively, ``petitioners''), and Fruticola Olmue, S.A. 
(``Olmue'').
    On September 17, 2004, we received rebuttal briefs from the 
petitioners, Olmue, H.J. Uren & Sons and Uren Chile S.A. (``Uren''), 
and Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada (``SANCO'').
    On October 28, 2004, we rejected Olmue's rebuttal brief because it 
contained new factual information. Olmue filed a revised rebuttal brief 
on November 1, 2004, redacting the new factual information submitted in 
the original rebuttal brief.

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.

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is December 31, 2001, through June 
30, 2003.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this review are addressed in the February 2, 2005 Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile (``Decision 
Memorandum''), which

[[Page 6619]]

is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an 
appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which 
we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. 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 Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main 
Department building (``CRU''). In addition, a complete version of the 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Facts Otherwise Available

    For the final results, the Department continues to find that Uren's 
largest 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 cost of production information requested 
by the Department. Thus, the Department continues to find that the use 
of adverse facts available is warranted under section 776 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''), by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). See Preliminary Results at 69 
FR 47869, 47871-47873 and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

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''). Our calculations followed 
the methodologies described in the preliminary results, except as noted 
below, and in the final results calculation memoranda cited below, 
which are on file in the CRU.

Export Price

    We used EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated 
EP for Uren and SANCO based on the same methodologies described in the 
preliminary results. See ``Uren Chile, S.A. Final Results Calculation 
Memorandum,'' dated February 2, 2005, (``Uren Calculation Memorandum'') 
and ``Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada Calculation 
Memorandum,'' dated February 2, 2005, (``SANCO Calculation 
Memorandum''). For Olmue, we calculated EP based on the same 
methodologies described in the preliminary results, with the exception 
of using a revised calculation of U.S. credit expenses. See ``Fruticola 
Olmue, S.A. Final Results Calculation Memorandum,'' dated February 2, 
2005, (``Olmue Calculation Memorandum'').

Normal Value

A. Cost of Production

1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    We calculated the cost of production (``COP'') in accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act. For SANCO and Olmue, we calculated the 
COP using the same methodologies described in the preliminary results. 
See SANCO Calculation Memorandum; see also Olmue Calculation 
Memorandum. For Uren, we calculated the COP using the same 
methodologies described in the preliminary results, with the exception 
of using a revised general and administrative expenses ratio. See 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see also Uren Calculation Memorandum.
a. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    We tested whether comparison market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP in accordance with section 
773(b) of the Act, using the same methodologies described in the 
preliminary results.
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.

B. Calculation of Constructed Value

    We calculated CV in accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and 
(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used the same methodologies described in the 
preliminary results. Where appropriate, we made the same adjustments to 
the CV costs as described in the ``Calculation of COP'' section of this 
notice.

C. Level of Trade

    We continue to find that one level of trade (``LOT'') exists in the 
comparison and U.S. markets for Olmue and SANCO. For Uren, we continue 
to find that two LOTs exist in the comparison market and that one LOT 
exists in the U.S. market. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 
Therefore, for the final results, we have continued to match Uren's 
U.S. sales with its comparison market sales at the same LOT, where 
possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on comparison market prices in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 and 411 (2003). 
For SANCO and Olmue, we used the same methodologies described in the 
preliminary results. For Uren, we used the same methodologies described 
in the preliminary results, with the exception of using a we 
recalculated Uren'sindirect selling expenses ratio. See Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5; see also Uren Calculation Memorandum.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    We calculated NV based on CV using the same methodologies described 
in the preliminary results, in accordance with sections 773(a) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

Final Results of the Review

    For the firms listed below, we find that the following percentage 
margins exist for the period December 31, 2001, through June 30, 2003:

[[Page 6620]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Exporter/manufacturer                   average margin
                                                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruticola Olmue, S.A....................................            1.23
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda..........            0.25
                                                            (de minimis)
Uren Chile, S.A.........................................           13.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    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(b), we have 
calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for 
merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., at or below 0.5 percent), in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(C)(2), for 
each respondent we calculated 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 entered 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 
will 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 
did not have entered values, we calculated 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 CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of 
review.

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 above in the ``Final Results of the 
Review'' section of this notice, 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) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a 
previous review, or the original 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, a 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 
shall continue to be 6.33 percent, the ``all others'' rate made 
effective by the less-than-fair-value 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.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 402(f)(2) 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.

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
the 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), which continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO material or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: February 2, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

General Comments

Comment 1: Calculation of Cost of Production

Comments Relating to Uren Chile, S.A.

Comment 2: Grower and Processor Affiliation
Comment 3: Application of Adverse Facts Available for Cost of 
Production
Comment 4: Level of Trade
Comment 5: Calculation of LOT Adjustment
Comment 6: Calculation of General and Administrative Expenses
Comment 7: Calculation of Financial Expense Ratio

Comments Relating to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.

Comment 8: Valuation of Olmue's Fresh Raspberries
Comment 9: Calculation of Financial Expense Ratio
Comment 10: Calculation of U.S. Credit Expense
Comment 11: Treatment of Unpaid Shipments
Comment 12: Start-up Adjustment
Comment 13: Treatment of Sales Made Above Normal Value

[FR Doc. E5-515 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P