[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