Federal Register, Volume 70 Issue 43 (Monday, March 7, 2005)

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 43 (Monday, March 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10965-10977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') covering the period February 1, 2003, through January 31,
2004. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the period of review (``POR''), for which the
importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Musser or Brian C. Smith, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1777, or (202) 482-1766, respectively.

Background

On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the Federal
Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on
certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999).
On February 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 5125 (February 3,
2004). On February 5 and 27, 2004, the Department received timely
requests from Dingyuan Import & Export Corporation (``Dingyuan''),
Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd., Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd.,
(``Gerber''), Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. (``Guangxi
Hengxian''), Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (``Primera
Harvest''), Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation, (``Shantou
Hongda''), Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation, Ltd. (``Jiufa''),
and Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd. (``XITIC'') for
an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b).
On February 27, 2004, the petitioner \1\ requested an
administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b) of 19 companies,\2\
which it claimed were

[[Page 10966]]

producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Five of these 19
companies also requested a review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom
Trae which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman,
Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushrooms Canning Company, and Sunny
Dell Foods, Inc.
\2\ The petitioner's request included the following companies:
(1) China Processed Food Import & Export Company (``COFCO'') and its
affiliates China National Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import &
Export Corporation (``China National''), COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``COFCO Zhangzhou''), Fujian Zishan Group Co.
(``Fujian Zishan''), Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd.
(``Xiamen Jiahua''), and Fujian Yu Xing Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff
Development Co. (``Yu Xing''); (2) Gerber; (3) Green Fresh Foods
(Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. and its affiliate Zhangzhou Longhai Lubao Food
Co., Ltd.; (4) Guangxi Hengxian; (5) Guangxi Yizhou Dongfang Cannery
(``Guangxi Yizhou''); (6) Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co.; Ltd.
(``Guangxi Yulin''); (7) Nanning Runchao Industrial Trade Co., Ltd.
(``Nanning Runchao''); (8) Primera Harvest; (9) Raoping Xingyu Foods
Co., Ltd. (``Raoping Xingyu'') and its affiliate Raoping Yucun
Canned Foods Factory (``Raoping Yucun''); (10) Shanghai Superlucky
Import & Export Company, Ltd. (``Superlucky''); (11) Shantou Hongda;
(12) Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. (``Shenxian Dongxing''); (13)
Shenzhen Qunxingyuan Trading Co., Ltd. (``Shenzhen Qunxingyuan'');
(14) Tak Fat Trading Co. (``Tak Fat'') and its affiliate Mei Wei
Food Industry Co., Ltd. (``Mei Wei''); (15) Xiamen Zhongjia Imp. &
Exp. Co., Ltd. (``Zhongjia''); (16) XITIC and its affiliate Inter-
Foods D.S. Co., Ltd.; (17) Zhangzhou Hongning Canned Food Factory;
(18) Zhangzhou Jingxiang Foods Co., Ltd.; and (19) Zhangzhou Longhai
Minhui Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (``Minhui'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 30, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative
review covering the companies listed in the requests received from the
interested parties. (See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 15788, 15801 (March 26, 2004)).
On October 15, 2004, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no
later than February 28, 2005 (69 FR 61202).

Respondents

On March 30, 2004, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to
each PRC company listed in the above-referenced initiation notice.
On April 1, 2004, the respondents Guangxi Yizhou, Nanning Runchao,
Raoping Xingyu and its affiliate Raoping Yucun, Shenxian Dongxing, and
Shenzhen Qunxingyuan each indicated that it did not have shipments of
the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
On May 7, 2004, the respondents Minhui, Primera Harvest,
Superlucky, Tak Fat and its affiliate Mei Wei, and Zhongjia each
indicated that it did not have shipments of the subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR.
From May 13 through May 28, 2004, COFCO and its affiliates, Gerber,
Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, Shantou Hongda,
and XITIC submitted their responses to the Department's antidumping
duty questionnaire.
From May 29 through July 15, 2004, the petitioner submitted
comments on the questionnaire responses provided by COFCO, Gerber,
Green Fresh, and Guangxi Hengxian.
From July 7 through August 3, 2004, the Department issued COFCO,
Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, Shantou
Hongda, and XITIC supplemental questionnaires.
On August 3, 2004, Shantou Hongda indicated that it no longer
intended to participate in this review and requested that the
Department extend the time limit for withdrawing its request for an
administrative review.
From August 11 through September 13, 2004, COFCO, Gerber, Green
Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC submitted
their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.
From September 16 through October 18, 2004, the petitioner
submitted additional comments on the questionnaire responses provided
by COFCO, Gerber, and Guangxi Hengxian.
From October 12 through November 29, 2004, the Department issued
COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and
XITIC second supplemental questionnaires.
From November 9 through December 27, 2004, COFCO, Gerber, Green
Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC submitted
their responses to the Department's second supplemental questionnaires.
On December 2, 2004, the petitioner submitted additional comments
on the second supplemental questionnaire response provided by Guangxi
Hengxian.
On November 18, 2004, the Department issued Gerber a third
supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on December 16, 2004.
On December 20, 2004, the Department issued Guangxi Hengxian a
third supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on January 12,
2005.
On December 29, 2004, the Department issued COFCO a third
supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on January 25, 2005.
From December 17 through December 20, 2004, the Department issued
COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and
XITIC a sales and cost reconciliation questionnaire, which the
respondents submitted from January 19, through January 26, 2005.
On December 29, 2004, the Department issued Gerber a fourth
supplemental questionnaire which it submitted on January 24, 2005.
As a result of not receiving its response to the antidumping duty
questionnaire, the Department issued a letter to Zhangzhou Jingxiang on
January 3, 2005, which notified this company of the consequences of not
having responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire.
On January 18, 2005, the petitioner submitted additional comments
on the questionnaire responses provided by COFCO.

Surrogate Country and Factors

On April 29, 2004, the Department provided the parties an
opportunity to submit publicly available information (``PAI'') for
consideration in these preliminary results.
On August 16, 2004, the petitioner, Gerber, Guangxi Hengxian,
Jiufa, and XITIC submitted PAI for use in valuing the factors of
production. On August 26, 2004, the petitioner, Guangxi Hengxian, and
Jiufa submitted additional PAI. On September 7, 2004, the petitioner
submitted additional PAI and comments.
On October 22, 2004, Guangxi Hengxian and Jiufa submitted comments
on the Department's surrogate value for labor which was posted on the
Department's Web site on October 6, 2004.
On January 10, 2005, Guangxi Hengxian and Jiufa submitted
additional surrogate values for consideration in this review.

Pre-Preliminary Results Comments

On February 4, 2005, the petitioner submitted pre-preliminary
results comments on the domestic re-sale data provided by Gerber in
this review (see February 28, 2005, Memorandum to the File from case
analyst).

Period of Review

The POR is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.

Scope of Order

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The
preserved mushrooms covered under this 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,
brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported
whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope
of this 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 this 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that
``marinated,'' ``acidified,'' or ``pickled'' mushrooms containing
less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the
antidumping duty order. See ``Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling
of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain Marinated,
Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,''
dated June 19, 2000. On February 9, 2005, this decision was upheld
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See
Tak Fat v. United States, Court No. 04-1131, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

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

[[Page 10967]]

The merchandise subject to this order is 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, the
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

We are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Guangxi
Yizhou, Minhui, Nanning Runchao, Primera Harvest, Raoping Xingyu and
its affiliate Raoping Yucun, Shenxian Dongxing, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan,
Superlucky, Tak Fat and its affiliate Mei Wei, and Zhongjia, because
the shipment data we examined did not show U.S. entries of the subject
merchandise during the POR from these companies (see February 28, 2005,
Memorandum to the File from case analyst).

Non-Market Economy Country

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. (See Fresh Garlic from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 69 FR 70638 (December 7,
2004)). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic
development (see April 13, 2004, Memorandum from the Office of Policy
to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias). In addition, based on publicly available
information placed on the record (e.g., world production data), India
is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we
have considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the
factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for
surrogate-country selection (see Memorandum Re: 5th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated February 28,
2005, for further discussion).

Facts Available--Green Fresh

For the reasons stated below, we have preliminarily applied partial
adverse facts available to Green Fresh.
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner
requested (subject to sections 782(c)(1) and 782(e) of the Act),
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or
provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall
use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
In this review, Green Fresh reported both export price (``EP'') and
constructed export price (``CEP'') sales transactions of subject
merchandise during the POR. However, Green Fresh failed to provide
critical information that the Department must have in order to rely on
its CEP sales transactions. Specifically, in the Department's original
questionnaire, we requested that Green Fresh provide the financial and
sales data for its U.S. affiliates' sales transactions of subject
merchandise made during the POR. In response to the Department's
questionnaire, Green Fresh did not report any data for its U.S.
affiliates. The Department, in its first supplemental questionnaire,
requested that this respondent provide sales and audited financial data
(i.e., financial statements and U.S. tax returns) for its two U.S.
affiliates (i.e., Green Mega and Family Mutual Corporation). Although
Green Fresh provided sales price data for its two U.S. affiliates in
response to our first supplemental questionnaire, it also stated that
it was unable to provide the other requested information at that time
because it had requested an extension until December 15, 2004, to file
its 2003 Federal tax returns with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
Further, Green Fresh stated that it would provide audited financial
statements and tax returns for both of its U.S. affiliates promptly
after issuance. The Department, in its second supplemental
questionnaire, instructed Green Fresh that it must provide the
finalized financial statements and tax returns for both of its U.S.
affiliates when they become available (which in this case was December
16, 2004), and Green Fresh, in response to this questionnaire, stated
that it will submit the requested documentation by December 16, 2004.
Green Fresh failed to provide the requested financial and tax return
data applicable during the POR for its two U.S. affiliates, despite the
fact that the Department issued Green Fresh two supplemental
questionnaires on this matter (see the Department's July 29 and October
25, 2004, supplemental questionnaires). Moreover, Green Fresh did not
include the requested data in its sales and cost reconciliation
questionnaire response submitted on January 19, 2005.
Because most of Green Fresh's reported CEP sales transactions
during this POR were first sold through Green Mega before being re-sold
through Green Fresh's other U.S. affiliate (i.e., Family Mutual
Corporation) to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, Green Mega's U.S.
financial data is necessary to support the information reported for
these CEP sales transactions. Without this requested information, the
Department is unable to determine the complete universe of Green Mega's
sales transactions during the POR in order to ensure that all U.S.
sales of subject merchandise have been reported. Moreover, without this
requested information, the Department is unable to rely on the sales
data reported by Family Mutual Corporation because all of its reported
CEP sales transactions originally were purchased from Green Mega before
being resold to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer during the POR.
Family Mutual Corporation's financial information is necessary for
deriving an amount for CEP profit and indirect selling expenses.
Without these data sources, the Department cannot accurately assess the
reliability and completeness of Family Mutual Corporation's sales data.
For these CEP sales transactions, the Department also requested,
and Green Fresh failed to provide, (1) worksheets which supported its
per-unit amounts for customs duties; (2) shipment dates; and (3)
selling expense data applicable for Green Mega during the POR. This
information is necessary for the Department to calculate a proper
dumping margin.

[[Page 10968]]

Section 782(d) of the Act requires that the Department allow
parties to remedy deficient submissions to the extent that time limits
in the review period allow. As stated above, the Department gave Green
Fresh multiple opportunities to provide the necessary financial data,
including through the date by which Green Fresh, itself, indicated it
would provide the data. Accordingly, the Department met its obligations
under section 782(d).
As discussed above, both of Green Fresh's U.S. affiliates failed to
provide critical information necessary to substantiate Green Fresh's
reported CEP sales data. As a result, the Department is unable to rely
on Green Fresh's CEP data. Therefore, we find that, pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the use of facts available is warranted in
this segment of the proceeding with respect to Green Fresh.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that
party as facts otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the
Department may employ adverse inferences against an interested party if
that party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with requests for information. See also ``Statement of
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H. Rep. No. 103-316, 870
(1994) (``SAA''). As stated above, Green Fresh indicated to the
Department that it had the ability to report its U.S. affiliates'
financial data and supporting documentation but it failed to do so. We
therefore find that Green Fresh failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability in this segment of the proceeding. As a result, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, we have made an adverse inference with
respect to Green Fresh.
In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with the
Department's practice (see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Preliminary Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review, 68 FR 1031, 1033
(January 8, 2003)), as partial adverse facts available, we have
assigned to Green Fresh's reported CEP sales transactions a rate of
198.63 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate. The Department's practice
when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of
information on the record is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently
adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to
induce a respondent to provide the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely manner.'' (See Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory
Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).) The
Department is not applying total adverse facts available because,
pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, because we believe that
sufficient record information established the reliability of the data
which Green Fresh reported for its EP sales transactions to calculate
an appropriate margin. Thus, we are only applying as partial adverse
facts available a rate of 198.63 percent to Green Fresh's reported CEP
sales transactions.

Facts Available--Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang

For the reasons stated below, we have applied total adverse facts
available to Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang.
On August 3, 2004, Shantou Hongda informed the Department that it
no longer intended to participate in this review (see Shantou Hongda's
August 3, 2004, submission). Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the
Act, the Department may apply adverse facts available if it finds a
respondent has not acted to the best of its ability in cooperating with
the Department in this segment of the proceeding.
The Department was unable to ascertain the accuracy of Shantou
Hongda's submitted data or determine whether Shantou Hongda was
entitled to a separate rate because Shantou Hongda stated that it no
longer intended to participate in this review after the Department
issued it a supplemental questionnaire. As a result, Shantou Hongda did
not provide the Department with requested information.
With respect to Dingyuan and Zhangzhou Jingxiang, both companies
failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire.
Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang, accordingly, each
failed to act to the best of its ability in cooperating with the
Department's request for information in this segment of the proceeding.
As a result, none of these companies is eligible to receive a
separate rate and will be part of the PRC NME entity, subject to the
PRC-wide rate. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have applied
total adverse facts available with respect to the PRC-wide entity,
including Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang.
In this segment of the proceeding, in accordance with Department
practice (see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Fifth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of the
Seventh New Shipper Review, 68 FR 1031, 1033 (January 8, 2003)), as
adverse facts available, we have assigned to exports of the subject
merchandise by Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang a rate
of 198.63 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate. As noted above with
respect to Green Fresh, we believe that the rate assigned is
appropriate to induce the respondent to provide the Department with
complete, accurate, and timely submissions in future reviews.

Corroboration of Facts Available

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. We are applying as adverse facts
available (``AFA'') the highest rate from any segment of this
administrative proceeding, which is a rate from the less-than-fair-
value (``LTFV'') investigation. (See Notice of Amendment of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,
64 FR 8308, 8310 (February 19, 1999)).
The information upon which the AFA rate is based in the current
review (i.e., the PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent) being assigned to
Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang was the highest rate
from the petition in the LTFV investigation. This AFA rate is the same
rate which the Department assigned to Shantou Hongda in the previous
review and the rate itself has not changed since the original LTFV
determination. For purposes of corroboration, the Department will
consider whether that margin is both reliable and relevant. The AFA
rate we are applying for the current review was corroborated in reviews
subsequent to the LTFV investigation to the extent that the Department
referred to the history of corroboration. Furthermore, no information
has been presented in the current review that calls into question the
reliability of this information. (See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review and Final Results and

[[Page 10969]]

Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 54635, 54637 (September 9, 2004) (``Mushrooms 4th AR
Final Results'')).
To further corroborate the AFA margin of 198.63 percent in this
review, we compared that margin to the margins we found for the other
respondents which sold identical and/or similar products. Based on our
above-mentioned analysis, we find that 198.63 percent is within the
margins for individual sales of identical and/or similar products
reported by certain respondents in this review (see Memorandum Re: 5th
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from the People's Republic of China: Corroboration, dated February 28,
2005, for further discussion). Thus, the Department finds that the
information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated). The information used in calculating this
margin was based on sales and production data submitted by the
respondents in the LTFV investigation, together with the most
appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department
chosen from submissions by the parties in the LTFV investigation, as
well as gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation
of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the
proceeding. Moreover, as there is no information on the record of this
review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as
AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance.
Based on our analysis as described above, we find that the margin
of 198.63 percent is reliable and has relevance. As the rate is both
reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value.
Accordingly, we determine that the calculated rate of 198.63 percent,
which is the current PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the requirement
of section 776(c) that secondary information be corroborated (i.e.,
that it have probative value). We have assigned this AFA rate to
exports of the subject merchandise by Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda,
Zhangzhou Jingxiang, and certain sales made with Green Fresh.

Affiliation--COFCO

To the extent that section 771(33) of the Act does not conflict
with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of
the non-market economy (``NME'') provision, section 773(c) of the Act,
the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are
affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding (see See
Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results, 69 FR at 54639). For the reasons
discussed below, we find that this condition has not prevented us from
examining whether certain exporters and/or producers are affiliated
with COFCO in this administrative review.
COFCO purchased preserved mushrooms from its producer, Fujian Yu
Xing Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co. (``Yu Xing''), which
it then sold to the United States during the POR. COFCO is also linked
through its parent company, China National Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs
Import & Export Corporation (``China National''), and Xiamen Jiahua
Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. (``Xiamen Jiahua'') to two other
preserved mushroom producers, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co.,
Ltd. (``COFCO Zhangzhou'') and Fujian Zishan Group Co. (``Fujian
Zishan''), from which COFCO purchased preserved mushrooms but claims it
did not re-sell to the U.S. market during the POR (see exhibit 1 of
COFCO's January 21, 2005, submission).
Section 771(33)(E) of the Act provides that the Department will
find parties to be affiliated if any person directly or indirectly
owns, controls, or holds with power to vote, five percent or more of
the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such
organization; section 771(33)(F) of the Act provides that parties are
affiliated if two or more persons directly or indirectly control, or
are controlled by, or under common control with any other person; and
section 771(33)(G) of the Act provides that parties are affiliated if
any person controls any other person.
In this case, COFCO holds a significant ownership share in Yu Xing
(see exhibit 9 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Moreover, COFCO
and Yu Xing share a company official who is on the board of directors
at both companies and whose responsibilities include (1) examining and
executing the implementation of resolutions passed by the board
members; (2) convening shareholder meetings; and (3) providing
financial reports of each company's business performance to each
company's board of directors (see page A-10 and exhibit 7 of COFCO's
May 28, 2004, submission; and exhibit 13 of COFCO's September 9, 2004,
submission). Based on such record information, the Department has
determined in this case that COFCO and Yu Xing are affiliated in
accordance with sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act.
In addition, COFCO Zhangzhou (which also produced preserved
mushrooms during the POR) appears to be affiliated with both COFCO and
Yu Xing based on section 771(33) of the Act. Specifically, both COFCO
and Yu Xing hold significant ownership shares in COFCO Zhangzhou (see
exhibit 5 of COFCO's September 9, 2004, submission). Moreover, COFCO
Zhangzhou shares with COFCO and Yu Xing the same company official who
is also on the board of directors at COFCO Zhangzhou, and who also
performs the same responsibilities at COFCO Zhangzhou which he performs
at COFCO and Yu Xing as described above (see also exhibit 7 of COFCO's
May 28, 2004, submission). COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing also have the
same general manager (see also exhibit 7 of COFCO's May 28, 2004,
submission). For these reasons, the Department has determined in this
case that COFCO, Yu Xing, and COFCO Zhangzhou are also affiliated in
accordance with section 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the Act.
Furthermore, based on data contained in COFCO's questionnaire
responses, COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing are also affiliated,
pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, either directly or indirectly,
with two other companies (i.e., Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading
Co., Ltd. (``Xiamen Jiahua'') and Fujian Zishan), which sold and/or
produced preserved mushrooms for markets other than the U.S. market
during the POR. Specifically, COFCO's parent company, China National,
holds a significant ownership share in Xiamen Jiahua (see also exhibit
9 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Moreover, the same company
official who is on the board of directors at COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou,
and Yu Xing is also on the board of directors at Xiamen Jiahua. In
addition, this company official performs

[[Page 10970]]

the same responsibilities at COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Yu Xing as
described above, which he performs at Xiamen Jiahua (see also exhibit 7
of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission).
With respect to Fujian Zishan (i.e., another producer of preserved
mushrooms during the POR), we note that Xiamen Jiahua holds a
significant ownership share in Fujian Zishan and that COFCO's parent
company, China National, holds a significant ownership share in Xiamen
Jiahua (see also exhibit 9 of COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Also,
we note that one of Fujian Zishan's board members also serves as the
general manager at Xiamen Jiahua. Moreover, given that there are shared
individuals in positions of control and/or influence between and among
these companies as discussed above, we also find sufficient control
exists between these entities to believe that Fujian Zishan is
affiliated with China National, COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu Xing, and
Xiamen Jiahua in accordance with section 771(33)(G) of the Act.
Accordingly, we find that COFCO, China National, COFCO Zhangzhou,
Fujian Zishan, Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing are affiliated through the
common control of COFCO's parent company pursuant to section 771(33)(F)
and (G) of the Act.

Collapsing--COFCO

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse
producers and treat them as a single entity where (1) those producers
are affiliated, (2) the producers have production facilities for
producing similar or identical products that would not require
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure
manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant potential for
manipulation of price or production. In determining whether a
significant potential for manipulation exists, the regulations provide
that the Department may consider various factors, including (1) the
level of common ownership, (2) the extent to which managerial employees
or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an
affiliated firm, and (3) whether the operations of the affiliated firms
are intertwined. (See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12764,
12774 (March 16, 1998) and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails from Taiwan, 62 FR 51427, 51436
(October 1, 1997).) To the extent that this provision does not conflict
with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of
the NME provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will
collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case involving an NME
country if the facts of the case warrant such treatment. Furthermore,
we note that the factors listed in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not
exhaustive, and in the context of an NME investigation or
administrative review, other factors unique to the relationship of
business entities within the NME may lead the Department to determine
that collapsing is either warranted or unwarranted, depending on the
facts of the case. See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248
F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 2003) (noting that the application of
collapsing in the NME context may differ from the standard factors
listed in the regulation).
In summary, depending upon the facts of each investigation or
administrative review, if there is evidence of significant potential
for manipulation or control between or among producers which produce
similar and/or identical merchandise, but may not all produce their
product for sale to the United States, the Department may find such
evidence sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in an NME context
in order to determine whether all or some of those affiliated producers
should be treated as one entity (see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 66 FR 22183 (May 3,
2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) (``Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products''); and Anshan Iron & Steel Co. v.
United States, Slip. Op. 03-83 at 32-33 (CIT 2003) (``Anshan'')). We
also note that the rationale for collapsing, to prevent manipulation of
price and/or production (see 19 CFR 351.401(f)), applies to both
producers and exporters, if the facts indicate that producers of like
merchandise are affiliated as a result of their mutual relationship
with an exporter.
As noted above in the ``Affiliation'' section of this notice, we
find a sufficient basis to conclude that COFCO, China National, COFCO
Zhangzhou, Fujian Zishan, Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing are affiliated
through the common control of COFCO's parent company pursuant to
section 771(33)(F) and (G) of the Act. Three of these entities, COFCO
Zhangzhou, Fujian, Zishan, and Yu Xing produced preserved mushrooms
during the POR, which would be subject to the antidumping duty order if
this merchandise entered the United States since all three producers
have the facilities necessary to produce preserved mushrooms (see
factors of production data submitted by each company in COFCO's May 28,
2004, submission). Therefore, we find that the first and second
collapsing criteria are met here because these producers at issue have
production facilities for producing similar or identical products, such
that no retooling at any of the three facilities is required in order
to restructure manufacturing priorities.
Finally, we find that the third collapsing criterion is met in this
case because a significant potential for manipulation of price or
production exists among COFCO and its affiliates for the following
reasons.
First, as explained above, there is a substantial level of common
ownership between and among these companies.
Second, a significant level of common control exists among these
companies. Specifically, China National appointed COFCO's general
manager and that this same individual was appointed by China National
to be Xiamen Jiahua's executive director and serves as a board member
at both COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing (see exhibits 7 of COFCO's May 28,
2004, submission). Moreover, Xiamen Jiahua's general manager is a vice
chairman on Fujian Zishan's board of directors (see also exhibit 7 of
COFCO's May 28, 2004, submission). Moreover, Xiamen Jiahua, upon
request, receives business projections from Fujian Zishan despite
Fujian Zishan's claim that it does not maintain documentation which
would establish the extent of Xiamen Jiahua's involvement in its
activities (see exhibit 2 of COFCO's January 21, 2005, submission).
Third, we find that the operations of COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, Yu
Xing, and Fujian Zishan, China National, and Xiamen Jiahua are
sufficiently intertwined. Specifically, China National consolidates
COFCO's and Xiamen Jiahua's financial data in its financial statements
as well as issues a business plan which provides guidance to its
affiliated companies (e.g., COFCO and Xiamen Jiahua) through the use of
export targets based on the general category of product (i.e.,
foodstuffs) listed in the business plan (see the public version of the
Department's China National/COFCO July 6, 2004, verification report at
8 and 12 issued in Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results, which has been
placed on the record of this review). Furthermore, there are
significant sales transactions between and among the above-mentioned
affiliates which serve as additional

[[Page 10971]]

evidence that their operations are intertwined. For example, COFCO
purchased mushroom products from all three of its affiliated producers
during the POR of this review (see page A-2 of COFCO's May 28, 2004,
submission and exhibit 1 of COFCO's January 21, 2005, submission).
However, COFCO decided only to export to the U.S. market mushroom
products produced by its affiliate Yu Xing (see exhibit 13 of COFCO's
May 28, 2004, submission). In addition, even though Fujian Zishan could
have exported all of its mushroom products (i.e., subject and non-
subject mushroom products) independently to the United States, it chose
not to export subject mushroom products to the U.S. market during the
POR (see page 13 of COFCO's September 9, 2004, submission). Similarly,
Xiamen Jiahua was able to purchase mushroom products for export from
both Fujian Zishan and COFCO Zhangzhou, but decided not to sell those
products to COFCO for export to the United States. Rather, it chose to
export these products on its own to third country markets if they were
in-scope merchandise (see page 12 of COFCO's September 9, 2004,
submission). In addition, since the LTFV investigation, COFCO has
shifted its source of supply among these affiliates. In the LTFV
investigation of this proceeding, Fujian Zishan's factors data was
initially used for purposes of determining COFCO's dumping margin (see
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Market Value:
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR
72255, 72258 (December 31, 1998)). However, during the POR, COFCO only
purchased its preserved mushrooms from its other affiliated producer,
Yu Xing, for sale to the United States.
Therefore, based on the above-mentioned reasons and the guidance of
19 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed COFCO and its
affiliates noted above because there is a significant potential for
manipulation of production and/or sales decisions between these
parties. Consequently, we have considered COFCO and the five affiliates
mentioned above as a collapsed entity for purposes of determining
whether or not the collapsed entity as a whole is entitled to a
separate rate. This decision is specific to the facts presented in this
review and based on several considerations, including the structure of
the collapsed entity and the level of control between/among affiliates
and the level of participation by each affiliate in the proceeding.
Given the unique relationships which arise in NMEs between individual
companies and the government, a separate rate will be granted to the
collapsed entity only if the facts, taken as a whole, support such a
finding (see ``Separate Rates'' section below for further discussion).

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate). One respondent
in this review, Gerber, is wholly owned by companies located outside
the PRC. Thus, for Gerber, because we have no evidence indicating that
it is under the control of the PRC government, a separate rates
analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from
government control. (See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth New Shipper
Review, 66 FR 44331 (August 23, 2001), which cites Brake Rotors from
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Fifth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 29080 (May 29, 2001)
(where the respondent was wholly owned by a U.S. registered company);
Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of Third
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001),
which cites Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper
Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001) (where the respondent was
wholly owned by a company located in Hong Kong); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20,
1999) (where the respondent was wholly owned by persons located in Hong
Kong)).
Two respondents, Green Fresh and Guangxi Yulin, are joint ventures
of PRC entities. Two respondents, Jiufa and XITIC, are joint-stock
companies in the PRC. Another respondent, Guangxi Hengxian, is a
limited liability company.
The remaining respondent, COFCO, is owned by its affiliate China
National, an exporter, which is owned by ``all of the people.'' COFCO
also owns in part two preserved mushroom producers, COFCO Zhangzhou and
Yu Xing. (Yu Xing has export rights but has never directly exported).
In addition to COFCO, China National owns in part Xiamen Jiahua (i.e.,
a preserved mushroom exporter) and Xiamen Jiahua owns in part Fujian
Zishan (i.e., another preserved mushroom producer which also has export
rights). As discussed above in the ``Collapsing'' section of this
notice, we have preliminarily considered COFCO and the five affiliates
mentioned above as a collapsed entity.
Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether
the export activities of each of above-mentioned respondents (including
COFCO's collapsed entity as a whole) is independent from government
control. (See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 56570 (April
30, 1996) (``Bicycles'').) To establish whether a firm is sufficiently
independent in its export activities from government control to be
entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising
from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), and amplified in the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate
rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence
of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export
activities.

1. De Jure Control

Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control over exporter activities includes: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies.
COFCO's collapsed entity, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi
Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC have placed on the administrative record the
following documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control: the 1994
``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China;'' the ``Company
Law of the PRC,'' effective as of July 1, 1994; and ``The Enterprise
Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations,'' promulgated on
June 13, 1988. In other cases involving products from the PRC,

[[Page 10972]]

respondents have submitted the following additional documents to
demonstrate absence of de jure control, and the Department has placed
these additional documents on the record as well: the ``Law of the
People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole
People,'' adopted on April 13, 1988 (``the Industrial Enterprises
Law''); the 1990 ``Regulation Governing Rural Collectively-Owned
Enterprises of PRC''; and the 1992 ``Regulations for Transformation of
Operational Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises''
(``Business Operation Provisions''). (See February 28, 2005, memorandum
to the file which places the above-referenced laws on the record of
this proceeding segment.)
As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them
to establish sufficiently an absence of de jure control of joint
ventures and companies owned by ``all of the people'' absent proof on
the record to the contrary. (See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of
China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (``Furfuryl Alcohol''), and
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's
Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995).)

2. De Facto Control

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, 59 FR at 22587, and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at 22544.)
Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
whether each 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 management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 at 22587 and Furfuryl
Alcohol, 60 FR at 22545.)
The affiliates in COFCO's collapsed entity (where applicable),
Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC each has
asserted the following: (1) Each establishes its own export prices; (2)
each negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental
entities or organizations; (3) each makes its own personnel decisions;
and (4) each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits
according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its
assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, each respondent's
questionnaire responses indicate that its pricing during the POR does
not suggest coordination among exporters. As a result, there is a
sufficient basis to preliminarily determine that each respondent listed
above (including COFCO's collapsed entity as a whole) has demonstrated
a de facto absence of government control of its export functions and is
entitled to a separate rate. Consequently, we have preliminarily
determined that each of these respondents has met the criteria for the
application of separate rates. Moreover, with respect to the affiliates
included in COFCO's collapsed entity, we have assigned to all of them
the same antidumping rate in these preliminary results for the above-
mentioned reasons.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by COFCO and
its affiliates, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin,
Jiufa, and XITIC to the United States were made at prices below normal
value (``NV''), we compared each company's EPs or CEPs to NV, as
described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

For COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin, Jiufa, and XITIC, we
used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act for
sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold prior to
importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for sales in which CEP
was not otherwise indicated. (See ``Facts Available--Green Fresh''
section above for the Department's reason for resorting to facts
available with respect to Green Fresh's reported CEP sales
transactions). We made the following company-specific adjustments:
A Green Fresh
We calculated EP based on packed, CNF U.S. port prices to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC, and
international freight in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees
were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we
based those charges on surrogate rates from India (see ``Surrogate
Country'' section below for further discussion of our surrogate-country
selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used Indian
truck freight rates published in Chemical Weekly and distance
information obtained from the following Web sites: http://www.infreight.com, and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php. To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we
relied on 1999-2000 public information reported in the LTFV
investigation on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from
India (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 67 FR 50406
(October 3, 2001)). For international freight (i.e., ocean freight), we
used the reported expenses because Green Fresh reportedly used only
market-economy freight carriers and paid for those expenses in a
market-economy currency (see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 64 FR 9972, 9974 (March 1, 1999)). We also revised Green
Fresh's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement
expenses (see Green Fresh calculation memorandum).
B. COFCO, Guangxi Yulin, and XITIC
We calculated export price based on packed, FOB foreign port prices
to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses in
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland
freight, brokerage, and handling expenses were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in Chinese currency (i.e., renminbi), we based
these charges on surrogate rates from India. (See discussion above for
further details.) Although COFCO claims the Department should not
deduct the foreign inland freight, brokerage, and

[[Page 10973]]

handling expenses from its reported U.S. prices because its affiliated
producer, Yu Xing and not COFCO, incurred these expenses, we have
continued to deduct these expenses incurred by Yu Xing, from COFCO's
reported U.S. prices. This deduction complies with the requirements of
section 772(c) the Act that instructs the Department to deduct expenses
from the U.S. gross unit price if a respondent or its affiliated
producer incurs expenses associated with transporting to and/or
clearing the subject merchandise through the country of exportation.
See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results, 69 FR at 54635, and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
COFCO claims that its affiliated producer, Yu Xing, did not incur
an expense for the glass jars used to export the subject merchandise to
the United States because COFCO's U.S. customers provided this item to
Yu Xing free-of-charge. In the Department's supplemental questionnaire,
we specifically requested COFCO to provide documentation (i.e., sample
invoice, sales contract, and/or purchase agreement) to support its
claim. Rather than providing any of the requested documentation in
support of its claim that it incurred no expense for this item, COFCO
provided only alleged (not sale) customer correspondence.
Because COFCO has not sufficiently supported its claim that its
U.S. customer contracted with a PRC jar producer, and that this
producer had indeed delivered jars to Yu Xing in a certain quantity on
a certain date, free-of-charge, the Department has not modified the
U.S. price of those transactions to reflect the U.S. customer's
reported expenditures for the preserved mushrooms and the jars. Because
the details of the alleged jars transactions are virtually nonexistent
on the record, and the link between these jars and the production of
the subject merchandise has not been sufficiently established, the
Department has preliminarily found that the record does not support
such an adjustment to COFCO's reported U.S. prices. This preliminary
decision on this matter is consistent with Brake Rotors from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of the Sixth Administrative Review and Preliminary Results and Final
Partial Rescission of the Ninth New Shipper Review, 69 FR 10402, 10407
(March 5, 2004). As the Department has an affirmative obligation to
prevent the manipulation of its calculations through unsubstantiated
claims on the record. It would not be reasonable at this time to grant
COFCO the modification to its calculations without substantial evidence
on the record to support its claim.
Finally, we also revised COFCO's, Guangxi Yulin's and XITIC's
reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement expenses
(see COFCO, Guangxi Yulin, and XITIC calculation memoranda).
C. Gerber and Jiufa
We calculated export price based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit
price) for foreign inland freight, brokerage, and handling expenses,
international freight (i.e., ocean freight), U.S. brokerage and
handling charges, U.S. import duties and fees (including harbor
maintenance fees, merchandise processing fees), and U.S. demurrage
charges in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. To value foreign
inland train charges, we used price quotes published in the July 2001
Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. Because foreign inland trucking
charges, brokerage, and handling expenses were provided by PRC service
providers or paid for in renminbi, we based these charges on surrogate
rates from India. (See discussion above for further details.) For
international freight, we used the reported expenses because each
respondent used a market-economy freight carrier and paid for the
expenses in a market-economy currency. We also revised the Gerber's and
Jiufa's reported per-unit packed weights used to derive PRC movement
expenses (see Gerber and Jiufa calculation memoranda).

Constructed Export Price

For Guangxi Hengxian we calculated CEP in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act because the U.S. sale was made for the account of
Guangxi Hengxian by its subsidiary in the United States, Sino-Trend,
Inc. (``Sino-Trend''), to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States.
We based CEP on a packed, ex-U.S. port prices to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these
included foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling
charges in the PRC, international freight (i.e., ocean freight), U.S.
brokerage and handling charges, U.S. import duties and fees (including
harbor maintenance fees, merchandise processing fees), and U.S.
demurrage charges. As all foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage
and handling expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid
for in renminbi, we valued these services using the Indian surrogate
values discussed above. For international freight, we used the reported
expenses because the respondent used a market-economy freight carrier
and paid for the expenses in a market-economy currency (see Guangxi
Hengxian calculation memorandum for further discussion).
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in
the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit expenses),
indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying expenses incurred in
the United States. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does
not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
The Department will base NV on the factors of production because the
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs
invalid under its normal methodologies.
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC factors of
production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of
production include, but are not limited to, hours of labor required,
quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, including
depreciation. See Section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In examining surrogate
values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which
was an average non-export value, representative of a range of prices
within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific,
and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR
75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (``Chlorinated Isocyanurates''). We
used the usage rates reported by the respondents for materials, energy,
labor, by-products, and packing. See Factor Valuation

[[Page 10974]]

Memo for a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in
calculating various surrogate values.
Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department used
facts otherwise available to value certain factors of production for
which Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Yulin and Yu Xing (i.e., COFCO's
affiliated producer) failed to provide consumption data in response to
supplemental questionnaires issued by the Department to these
companies.
Specifically, Green Fresh failed to provide, as requested, a
consumption factor for the water it used to grow fresh mushrooms.
Although this respondent claimed it obtained the water free of charge
from a nearby river and was unable to determine the amount of water it
used to grow its fresh mushrooms, the Department was clear in its
supplemental questionnaires that the respondent is required to report
the requested information. See Pacific Giant v. United States, 223 F.
Supp. 2nd 1336, 1346 (CIT 2002) (affirming the Department's valuation
of water). Green Fresh did not have to provide an exact factor, but
like the other respondents, it could have provided a theoretical usage
amount for this input (i.e., a calculated factor based on the land used
to grow fresh mushrooms, the amount of water used per hectare, etc.).
In addition, although this respondent argues that valuing this
factor would result in double counting its costs associated with water
usage in the fresh mushroom production process if the Department also
valued the electricity it used to pump the water from the nearby river,
we find that Green Fresh did not provide sufficient evidence in its
questionnaire responses to demonstrate that its reported electricity
usage for growing fresh mushrooms was only limited to water pumping
activities. Such information is necessary for determining the normal
value of Green Fresh's reported U.S. sales. Thus, with respect to this
factor, we have determined that Green Fresh did not act to the best of
its ability in providing us with the requested information.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, as adverse facts
available, the Department has used the highest per-unit water factor
for fresh mushroom production (based on the per-unit consumption data
for this input reported by the other respondents in this review) for
purposes of valuing the costs associated with this input utilized by
Green Fresh.
Section 773(c)(3) of the Act states that ``the factors of
production utilized in producing merchandise include, but are not
limited to the quantities of raw materials employed.'' Therefore, the
Department is required under the Act to value all inputs (including
inputs for which the respondent claims were provided to it purportedly
free of charge). As explained in the ``Export Price'' section above,
COFCO did not sufficiently support its claim that its U.S. customer
provided Yu Xing the jars it used free-of-charge. For this reason, we
have not adjusted COFCO's reported U.S. prices to include the value of
jars for certain sales of preserved mushrooms in these preliminary
results. Despite the fact that we have not made the above-referenced
adjustment to COFCO's U.S. prices reported for sales of the subject
merchandise contained in jars, section 773(c)(3) of the Act
nevertheless requires the Department to value each factor of production
used to produce the subject merchandise. Accordingly, for these
preliminary results, the Department has valued the jar usage amounts
reported by Yu Xing by using a surrogate value (see Factor Valuation
Memo).
As for Gerber, Guangxi Yulin, and Yu Xing (i.e., COFCO's affiliated
producer), these respondents failed to provide, as requested, a
consumption factor for the soil which they used to grow fresh
mushrooms. Although these respondents claimed that they did not
purchase the soil used to grow fresh mushrooms and do not maintain
consumption records for this input, we find again, the respondents
could have provided a theoretical usage amount for this input just as
many respondents did with respect to water, based on the land used to
grow fresh mushrooms, height of the top soil used in mushroom sheds,
and other factors. Despite these respondents' claims that the soil
should not be treated as a direct material because this input is not
incorporated in the intermediate product (i.e., fresh mushrooms), we
consider soil an integral part of the fresh mushroom process because
without this input, the fresh mushrooms cannot be produced. This
information is necessary for determining the normal value of COFCO's,
Gerber's, and Guangxi Yulin's reported U.S. sales. We have determined
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act that companies did not act to the
best of their ability in providing the factor data for this input.
Therefore, as adverse facts available, the Department has used the
highest per-unit soil factor (based on the per-unit consumption data
for this input reported by the other respondents in this review) for
purposes of valuing the costs associated with this input utilized by
Gerber, Guangxi Yulin, and Yu Xing (i.e., COFCO's affiliated producer).
See company-specific calculation memoranda for further discussion.
With respect to other factors data submitted by COFCO's affiliated
producer, Fujian Zishan, and Guangxi Hengxian, we made adjustments to
their submitted data which we deemed were necessary based on comments
submitted by the petitioner in this review (see COFCO and Guangxi
Hengxian calculation memoranda for further discussion).

Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the factors of production reported by the respondents for the
POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor
quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except where
noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. See Manganese
Metal from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12442
(March 13, 1998). As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to
Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, where
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive number of surrogate
values it was necessary to assign in this investigation, we present a
discussion of the main factors. For a detailed description of all
surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation Memo.
Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using
February 2003-January 2004 weighted-average Indian import values
derived from the World Trade Atlas online (``WTA'') (see also Factor
Valuation Memo). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the WTA
were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were
reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with the POR. Indian
surrogate values denominated in foreign currencies were converted to
U.S. dollars using the applicable average exchange rate for India for
the POR. The average exchange rate was based on exchange rate data from
the Department's Web site. Where we could not obtain publicly available

[[Page 10975]]

information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors,
we adjusted the surrogate values for inflation using Indian wholesale
price indices (``WPIs'') as published in the International Monetary
Fund's International Financial Statistics. See Factor Valuation Memo.
Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that
prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have
been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there is
reason to believe or suspect all exports to all markets from these
countries are subsidized. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From The People's
Republic, 61 FR 66255 (February 12, 1996), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an
NME or a country with general export subsidies.

Surrogate Valuations

To value fresh mushrooms and rice straw, we used an April 2002-
March 2003 average price based on purchase data contained in the 2003-
2004 financial report of Premier Explosives Ltd. (``Premier''). See
Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results, 69 FR at 54635, and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12.
To value cow manure and general and/or wheat straw, we used an
average price based on data contained in the 2003-2004 financial
reports of Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (``Agro Dutch'') and Flex Foods Ltd.
(``Flex Foods'') (i.e., two Indian producers of the subject
merchandise) because we could not obtain any other Indian surrogate
values for these inputs.
To value spawn and chicken manure, we used an average price based
on data contained in the 2003-2004 financial reports of Agro Dutch,
Flex Foods Ltd., and Premier. We did not use the spawn value data
obtained from the National Research Center for Mushroom (which was
established by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research), because
data on the record indicates that this research center is fully
financed by the Indian government, and its spawn price is not
determined by market forces.
For those respondents which used mother spawn, we also used the
average spawn price to value mother spawn from Agro Dutch, Flex Foods,
and Premier, because we were unable to obtain publicly available
information which contained a price for mother spawn.
To value rice straw, we used price data contained in Premier's
2003-2004 financial report because no such data was available from the
other financial reports on the record and we could not obtain any other
Indian surrogate values for this input.
To value wheat, we used price data contained in Flex Foods' 2003-
2004 financial report because no such data was available from the other
financial reports on the record and we could not obtain any other
Indian surrogate values for this input.
To value super phosphate, we used price data contained in Flex
Foods' 2002-2003 financial report because no such data was available
from the other financial reports on the record and we could not obtain
any other Indian surrogate values for this input.
To value soil, we used July 2003 price data from two U.S.
periodicals, Mt. Scott Fuel and Interval Compost, rather the data
contained in the Indian Government's Central Public Works Department
publication, because the excerpt from this publication only appears to
provide a rate for services (e.g., supplying and stacking earth at
site) rather than a surrogate value for soil. Moreover, we did not use
the value for ``pressed mud'' from Flex Foods'' 2003-2004 financial
report to value this input, because given the magnitude of that value,
we cannot conclude that it is representative of the value for soil used
to grow mushrooms versus other applications (e.g., construction of
sheds). See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results, 69 FR at 54635, and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.
For disodium stannous citrate, we used a February 2003-January 2004
average import value for sodium citrate from the World Trade Atlas
because we were unable to obtain a more specific value for this input.
To value monosodium glutamate, we used a January 2003-December 2003
weighted-average value based on imports of these inputs into the
Indonesia from WTA, because we had reason to believe or suspect that a
significant amount of imports of this input into India during the POR
were subsidized.
For those respondents which only purchased tin cans used in the
production of preserved mushrooms during the POR, we valued tin cans
using the can-purchase-specific price data from the May 21, 2001,
public version response submitted by Agro Dutch in the 2nd antidumping
duty administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India,
and derived per-unit, can-size-specific prices using the petitioner's
methodology contained in its August 16, 2004, PAI submission.
For those respondents (i.e., COFCO) which both purchased and
produced tin cans during the POR we valued tin cans using the actual
price data from the supplemental questionnaire response submitted by
Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (``Agro Dutch'') in the 3rd antidumping duty
administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India.
Although Jiufa reported its affiliate's factors used to produce
cans, we did not value the factors it reported for producing cans
because a collapsing analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f) was not
warranted in this instance. Instead, we valued this company's reported
can factor.
To value water, we used the water tariff rate for the greater
Municipality of Mumbai, India (``Mumbai Municipality''), that was
formerly available on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web
site and was used in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China,
69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). See also http://www.mcgm.gov.in/Stat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm. The latest available data covers the period
from February 2001 through November 2002. The cost of water during this
period ranged from 1.0 to 35.00 Rs/1,000 liters (1,000 liters of water
is equivalent to 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of water is
equivalent to 1 metric ton of water). We used the highest value from
the water price range data from the Mumbai Municipality.
We valued electricity using the 2000 total average price per
kilowatt hour for ``Electricity for Industry'' as reported in the
International Energy Agency's (``IEA'' 's) publication, Energy Prices
and Taxes, Fourth Quarter, 2003.
We added an amount for loading and additional transportation
charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June
1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical Business Line.
To value diesel fuel, we used 2002 Indian price data from IEA's Key
World Energy Statistics.

[[Page 10976]]

To value steam, we used January-June 1999 Indian price data from PR
Newswire Association Inc.
Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the
use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor
input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC
published by Import Administration on our website. The source of the
wage rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, published by
the International Labour Office (``ILO''), (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B:
Wages in Manufacturing. See the Import Administration Web site: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/02wages/02wages.html. Although Guangxi Hengxian
and Juifa question the Department's labor rate calculation methodology
in using per-capita Gross National Income (``GNI'') and wage-rate
information available from the ILO web site for certain countries in
its regression analysis, we have continued to employ our long-
established methodology for determining the wage rate for the PRC. See,
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR
67313 (November 17, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 23.
Certain respondents (e.g., COFCO, Guangxi Yulin) reported certain
by-products (i.e., recovered tin plate, recovered copper wire, and
mushroom scrap) in producing the subject merchandise which each either
re-sold or re-used to produce the subject merchandise during the POR.
Therefore, in those instances where the respondent provided
documentation to support its by-product claim and we obtained
appropriate surrogate values for those by-products, we allowed a
recovery/by-product credit. Because we could not obtain an appropriate
surrogate value for mushroom scrap, we did not value this by-product in
the preliminary results. Our treatment of by-products in this
proceeding is in accordance with the Department's practice. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR
49632 (September 28, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
To value packing materials, we used February 2003-January 2004
weighted-average Indian import values derived from WTA. Although Jiufa
reported its affiliate's factors used to produce cartons, we did not
value the factors it reported for producing cartons because a
collapsing analysis pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f) was not warranted in
this instance. Instead, we valued this company's reported carton
factor.
To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by truck, we used
Indian freight rates published in the October 2003-January 2004 issues
of Chemical Weekly and obtained distances between cities from the
following Web sites: http://www.infreight.com and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php.
To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by train, we used
price quotes published in the July 2001 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.
To value factory overhead (``FOH'') and selling, general &
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, we used data from the
2003-2004 financial reports of Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (``Agro Dutch'')
and Flex Foods Ltd. (``Flex Foods''). These Indian companies are
producers of the subject merchandise based on data contained in each
Indian company's financial reports.
We did not use the 2003-2004 financial data obtained for Premier to
value factory overhead, SG&A or profit, because although this company
produces the subject merchandise, its operations, unlike Agro Dutch and
Flex Foods, are not limited to the production of mushrooms and other
similar agricultural products. See Mushrooms 4th AR Final Results, 69
FR at 54635, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
8.
Where appropriate, we did not include in the surrogate overhead and
SG&A calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial
reports. We made certain adjustments to the ratios calculated as a
result of reclassifying certain expenses contained in the financial
reports. For a further discussion of the adjustments made, see the
Preliminary Results Valuation Memorandum.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307,
the Department will conduct a complete and thorough verification of a
number of respondents in this review, including, but not limited to,
Gerber, Green Fresh (with respect to its EP sales and factors of
production data used in our analysis), Jiufa, and XITIC. With respect
to Gerber and Green Fresh, we will ascertain whether they continued to
engage in practices which resulted in the application of adverse facts
available in the prior two administrative reviews.

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily find that the following margins exist for the
following exporters under review during the period February 1, 2003,
through January 31, 2004:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the PRC Mandatory Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Processed Food Import & Export Company............... 38.25
Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd.............................. 0.00
Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd..................... 153.93
Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc...................... 49.98
Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd....................... 8.92
Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Corporation Ltd............... 65.57
Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd........... 8.69
PRC-Wide Rate.............................................. 198.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. If requested, a hearing will be held on May
16, 2005.
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, Room B-099, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1)The
party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in
case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties
may be submitted not later than May 2, 2005, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, will be due not later than May 9, 2005, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review,

[[Page 10977]]

including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this
review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final
results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will
calculate importer- or customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those
same sales. For certain respondents for which we calculated a margin,
we do not have the actual entered value because they are either not the
importers of record for the subject merchandise or were unable to
obtain the entered value data for their reported sales from the
importer of record. For these respondents, we intend to calculate
individual customer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and
dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To
determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate customer-specific ad valorem
ratios based on export prices.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer or customer-
specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review
is above de minimis.
For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from
companies not subject to these reviews, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of the administrative review for all
shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rates for COFCO, Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin,
Jiufa, and XITIC, will be the rates determined in the final results of
review (except that if a rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50
percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) the cash deposit rate
for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of
the proceeding (which were not reviewed in this segment of the
proceeding) will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of
the proceeding (e.g., Guangxi Yizhou, Minhui, Nanning Runchao, Primera
Harvest, Raoping Xingyu and its affiliate Raoping Yucun, Shenxian
Dongxing, Shenzhen Qunxingyuan, Superlucky, Tak Fat and its affiliate
Mei Wei, and Zhongjia); (3) the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME
entity (including Dingyuan, Shantou Hongda, and Zhangzhou Jingxiang)
will continue to be 198.63 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter.
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 preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(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.
This administrative review and notice is in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Dated: February 28, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-925 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P