[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 47 (Friday, March 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12181-12185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-850]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Live Swine From Canada

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

SUMMARY: On October 20, 2004, the Department of Commerce published a 
preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of live 
swine from Canada. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on the preliminary determination. Based upon the results of 
verification and our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes. We continue to find that live swine from Canada were 
sold in the United States below normal value during the period of 
investigation. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed 
below in the section entitled ``Continuation of Suspension of 
Liquidation.''

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle or Andrew Smith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1503 or (202) 482-1276, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 20, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary 
determination in its investigation of live swine from Canada. See 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination:

[[Page 12182]]

Live Swine From Canada, 69 FR 61639 (October 20, 2004) (``Preliminary 
Determination'').
    Since the Preliminary Determination, the following events have 
occurred:
    On October 25, 2004, Excel requested that the Department reconsider 
its preliminary decision to rescind its selection of Excel as a 
mandatory respondent in this investigation.
    On November 3, 2004, the Department decided to verify Excel's 
questionnaire responses.
    On November 29, 2004, Premium Pork Canada, Inc. (``Premium Pork'') 
withdrew from this investigation.
    In November and December 2004, and January 2005, we conducted 
verifications of the sales and cost of production (``COP'') 
questionnaire responses submitted by Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing 
Board (``Ontario Pork''), Hytek, Inc. (``Hytek''), and Excel Swine 
Services, Inc. (``Excel'') at each company's headquarters and at 
certain farm locations. We issued verification reports in January 2005.
    We received case and rebuttal briefs from the Illinois Pork 
Producers Association, the Indiana Pork Advocacy Coalition, the Iowa 
Pork Producers Association, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, 
the Missouri Pork Association, the Nebraska Pork Producers Association, 
Inc., the North Carolina Pork Council, Inc., the Ohio Pork Producers 
Council, and 119 individual producers of live swine \1\ (collectively, 
hereinafter, ``the petitioners''), Excel, Hytek, Ontario Pork, and 
Baxter Transport, Ltd., J. Quintaine & Son, Ltd., and Zantingh Swine 
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alan Christensen, Alicia Prill-Adams, Aulis Farms, Baarsch 
Pork Farm, Inc., Bailey Terra Nova Farms, Bartling Brothers Inc., 
Belstra Milling Co. Inc., Berend Bros. Hog Farm LLC, Bill Tempel, BK 
Pork Inc., Blue Wing Farm, Bornhorst Bros, Brandt Bros., Bredehoeft 
Farms, Inc., Bruce Samson, Bryant Premium Pork LLC, Buhl's Ridge 
View Farm, Charles Rossow, Cheney Farms, Chinn Hog Farm, Circle K 
Family Farms LLC, Cleland Farm, Clougherty Packing Company, Coharie 
Hog Farm, County Line Swine Inc., Craig Mensick, Daniel J. Pung, 
David Hansen, De Young Hog Farm LLC, Dean Schrag, Dean Vantiger, 
Dennis Geinger, Double ``M'' Inc., Dykhuis Farms, Inc., E & L 
Harrison Enterprises, Inc., Erle Lockhart, Ernest Smith, F & D 
Farms, Fisher Hog Farm, Fitzke Farm, Fultz Farms, Gary and Warren 
Oberdiek Partnership, Geneseo Pork, Inc., GLM Farms, Greenway Farms, 
H & H Feed and Grain, H & K Enterprises, LTD, Ham Hill Farms, Inc., 
Harrison Creek Farm, Harty Hog Farms, Heartland Pork LLC, Heritage 
Swine, High Lean Pork, Inc., Hilman Schroeder, Holden Farms Inc., 
Huron Pork, LLC, Hurst AgriQuest, J D Howerton and Sons, J. L. 
Ledger, Inc., Jack Rodibaugh & Sons, Inc., JC Howard Farms, Jesina 
Farms, Inc., Jim Kemper, Jorgensen Pork, Keith Berry Farms, Kellogg 
Farms, Kendale Farm, Kessler Farms, L.L Murphrey Company, Lange 
Farms LLC, Larson Bros Dairy Inc., Levelvue Pork Shop, Long Ranch 
Inc., Lou Stoller & Sons, Inc., Luckey Farm, Mac-O-Cheek, Inc., 
Martin Gingerich, Marvin Larrick, Max Schmidt, Maxwell Foods, Inc., 
Mckenzie-Reed Farms, Meier Family Farms Inc., MFA Inc., Michael 
Farm, Mike Bayes, Mike Wehler, Murphy Brown LLC, Ned Black and Sons, 
Ness Farms, Next Generation Pork, Inc., Noecker Farms, Oaklane 
Colony, Orangeburg Foods, Oregon Pork, Pitstick Pork Farms Inc., 
Prairie Lake Farms, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, Inc., Prestage 
Farms, Inc., R Hogs LLC, Rehmeier Farms, Rodger Schamberg, Scott W. 
Tapper, Sheets Farm, Smith-Healy Farms, Inc., Square Butte Farm, 
Steven A. Gay, Sunnycrest Inc., Trails End Far, Inc., TruLine 
Genetics, Two Mile Pork, Valley View Farm, Van Dell Farms, Inc., 
Vollmer Farms, Walters Farms LLP, Watertown Weaners, Inc., Wen Mar 
Farms, Inc., William Walter Farm, Willow Ridge Farm LLC, Wolf Farms, 
Wondraful Pork Systems, Inc., Wooden Purebred Swine Farms, Woodlawn 
Farms, and Zimmerman Hog Farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is all live swine 
(``swine'' or ``subject merchandise'') from Canada except breeding 
stock swine. Live swine are defined as four-legged, monogastric 
(single-chambered stomach), litter-bearing (litters typically range 
from 8 to 12 animals), of the species sus scrofa domesticus. This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 0103.91.00 and 0103.92.00.
    Specifically excluded from this scope are breeding stock, including 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') certified purebred breeding 
stock and all other breeding stock. The designation of the product as 
``breeding stock'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use 
as breeding live swine. This designation is presumed to indicate that 
these products are being used for breeding stock only. However, should 
the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis 
to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of 
such products for other than this application, end-use certification 
for the importation of such products may be required.
    Although the HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In the Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Live 
Swine from Canada, 69 FR 19815 (April 14, 2004) (``Initiation 
Notice''), we invited comments on the scope of this proceeding. On May 
4, 2004, we received a request from the GOC to amend the scope of this 
investigation and the companion countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
investigation. Specifically, the GOC requested that the scope be 
amended to exclude hybrid breeding stock. According to the GOC, 
domestic producers use hybrid breeding stock instead of purebred stock 
to strengthen their strains of swine. The GOC stated that no evidence 
was provided of injury, or threat of injury, to the domestic live swine 
industry from the importation of hybrid breeding stock. Furthermore, 
the GOC noted that the petition excluded USDA certified purebred 
breeding swine from the scope of the above-mentioned investigations. 
The GOC argued that the documentation which accompanies imported hybrid 
breeding swine makes it easy to distinguish hybrid breeding swine from 
other live swine.
    On August 4, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the 
GOC's scope exclusion request and proposed modified scope language. The 
petitioners stated they did not oppose the GOC's request to exclude 
hybrid breeding stock, but were concerned about the potential for 
circumvention of any CVD or antidumping duty (``AD'') order on live 
swine from Canada through non-breeding swine entering the domestic 
market as breeding stock. Thus, the petitioners proposed modified scope 
language that would require end-use certification if the petitioners or 
other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for 
other than this application. Moreover, on July 30, 2004, the 
petitioners submitted a request to the International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') to modify the HTSUS by adding a statistical breakout that 
would separately report imports of breeding animals other than purebred 
breeding animals, allowing the domestic industry to monitor the import 
trends of hybrid breeding stock.
    On August 9, 2004, both the GOC and the respondent companies 
submitted comments to respond to the petitioners' proposed revised 
scope. Both the GOC and the respondent companies stated that they 
generally agreed with the petitioners' modified scope language, with 
the two following exceptions: (1) They contended that the petitioners' 
language setting forth the mechanics of any end use certification 
procedure was premature and unnecessary, and (2) they argued that the 
petitioners' language stating that ``all products meeting the physical 
description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded 
are included in this scope'' was unnecessary because the physical 
description of the merchandise in scope remains determinative.
    On August 12, 2004, the petitioners submitted a response to the 
August 9,

[[Page 12183]]

2004 comments from the GOC and the respondents. The petitioners 
reiterated their support for their proposed modification to the scope 
language. They argued that (1) their proposed language had been used 
before by the Department in other proceedings; (2) since U.S. importers 
bear the burden of paying the duties, the importers should be required 
to certify to the end use of the product; and (3) with the petitioners' 
concerns about circumvention, the ``physical description'' language 
provided an important clarification that all live swine except for the 
excluded products are included in the scope.
    As further discussed in the August 16, 2004 memorandum entitled 
``Scope Exclusion Request: Hybrid Breeding Stock'' (on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department 
building (``CRU'')), we preliminarily revised the scope in both the AD 
and companion CVD proceedings based on the above scope comments. See 
Preliminary Determination, 69 FR 61639, 61640-61641, and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Live Swine from Canada, 69 FR 
51800, 51801-51802 (August 23, 2004). No further scope comments were 
received from any party subsequent to these preliminary determination. 
Thus, we have adopted the revised scope from the Preliminary 
Determination for this final determination. The revised scope language 
is included in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, above.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2003, through 
December 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition on March 5, 2004.

Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, a respondent (A) 
withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
Section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified.
    Section 782(e) of the Act further provides that the Department 
shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an 
interested party and that is necessary to the determination but does 
not meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department 
if (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its 
submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information 
and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect 
to the information; and (5) the information can be used without undue 
difficulties.
    Premium Pork responded to the Department's questionnaires and 
otherwise participated in this investigation until November 29, 2004, 
two weeks before Premium Pork's scheduled verification. On November 29, 
2004, Premium Pork withdrew from this investigation because of its 
impending dissolution. See Premium Pork's November 29, 2004 withdrawal 
letter. Premium Pork's receivers stated that its companies would ``not 
continue their current integrated operations'' after its asset sales 
were completed. Id. The Department has not received any further 
communication from Premium Pork.
    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the 
interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See, e.g, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil., 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 
(August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that 
the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
    In this case, Premium Pork ultimately failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability because it failed to participate in verification. 
Therefore, the Department finds that in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Frozen and Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 22 
(the Department applied total adverse facts available where the 
respondent withdrew from the investigation prior to verification) and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 
42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total adverse 
facts available where the respondent failed to respond to the 
antidumping questionnaires).
    As adverse facts available, we have assigned Premium Pork a margin 
of 18.87 percent, the highest price-to-price margin alleged in the 
petition, in accordance with section 776(b)(1). Section 776(b) of the 
Act notes that an adverse facts available rate may include reliance on 
information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final determination 
in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any other 
information placed on the record. Thus, the statute does not limit the 
specific sources from which the Department may obtain information for 
use as facts available. The SAA recognizes the importance of adverse 
facts available as an investigative tool in antidumping proceedings. 
The Department's potential use of adverse facts available provides the 
only incentive to foreign exporters and producers to respond to the 
Department's questionnaires. See SAA at 868.
    Section 776(c) of the Act mandates that the Department, to the 
extent practicable, shall corroborate secondary information (such as 
petition data) using independent sources reasonably at its disposal. In 
accordance with the law, the Department, to the extent practicable, 
will examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    To corroborate the margin assigned to Premium Pork, we compared the 
normal values and U.S. prices submitted by the petitioners, as amended 
by the Department in the April 7, 2004, Initiation Checklist, to data 
submitted by the respondents for whom we are calculating a margin. See 
March 4, 2004, memorandum, ``Final Determination of Live Swine from 
Canada: Corroboration Memorandum.'' This comparison corroborates and 
supports the reliability of the selected margin.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is 
not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,

[[Page 12184]]

1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse 
facts available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin)). Therefore, we also examined whether any information on the 
record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available 
for Premium Pork. No such information exists. In particular, there is 
no information that might lead to a conclusion that a different rate 
would be more appropriate.
    Accordingly, we have assigned Premium Pork the rate of 18.87 
percent as total adverse facts available. This is consistent with 
section 776(b) of the Act which states that adverse inferences may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We calculated constructed export price, export price, and normal 
value based on the same methodologies used in the Preliminary 
Determination and in our November 3, 2004, calculations \2\ for Excel, 
with the following exceptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to File, ``Export Price Calculation 
Memorandum for Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian 
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big 
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004, and Memorandum 
to File, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Memorandum--Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian 
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big 
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ontario Pork

    We used the sales databases submitted by Ontario Pork after 
verification, which include the minor corrections presented at 
verification. We revised Ontario Pork's advertising expenses. See 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. We did not include the U.S. direct 
selling expense that we included in the Preliminary Determination. See 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. We revised Ontario Pork's reported 
crossing fees based on information contained in Ontario Pork's 
verification exhibits. See Memorandum to File, ``Ontario Pork 
Producers' Marketing Board Final Determination Calculation 
Memorandum,'' dated March 4, 2005.

Excel

    We used the U.S. database submitted by Excel after verification in 
our margin calculations, which includes the minor corrections presented 
at verification. In addition, we disregarded sales of substandard 
merchandise. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 51. See Memorandum to 
File, ``Excel Swine Service, Inc. Final Determination Calculation 
Memorandum,'' dated March 4, 2005.

Hytek

    We used the databases submitted by Hytek after verification, which 
include the minor corrections presented at verification. For Hytek's 
U.S. sales, we accounted for an additional billing adjustment and 
direct selling expense which were presented as minor corrections at 
verification. In our product comparisons, we prevented matches between 
U.S. sales of isoweans and home market sales of spent boars. See 
Memorandum to File, ``Hytek, Ltd. Final Determination Calculation 
Memorandum,'' dated March 4, 2005.

Cost of Production and Constructed Value

    We calculated the cost of production (``COP'') and constructed 
value (``CV'') for Ontario Pork, Hytek, and Excel based on the same 
methodologies used in the Preliminary Determination, and in our 
November 3, 2004, calculations \3\ for Excel, except for those changes 
noted in the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Final Determination--Ontario Pork 
Producers' Marketing Board Cost Respondents,'' dated March 4, 2005; 
Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed 
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination--Excel Swine 
Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony of Hutterian Bretheren Trust, Rainbow 
Colony of Hutterian Bretheren Trust, and Big Boulder Creek Farms 
Ltd.,'' dated March 4, 2005; and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost 
of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Final 
Determination--Hytek Ltd.,'' dated March 4, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to File, ``Export Price Calculation 
Memorandum for Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian 
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big 
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004, and Memorandum 
to File, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Memorandum--Excel Swine Services, Inc./Riverbend Colony Hutterian 
Brethren Trust, Rainbow Colony Hutterian Brethren Trust, and Big 
Boulder Creek Farms, Ltd.,'' dated November 3, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home Market Sales Disregarded

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were 
at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales 
of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-
cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at 
prices less than the COP, we determine that the below-cost sales 
represent ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we 
also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    With respect to Ontario Pork and Hytek, for certain products, more 
than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than 
the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were 
made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used 
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Verifications

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by the respondents during November and December, 
2004, and January, 2005. We used standard verification procedures, 
including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as 
well as original source documents provided by the respondents.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the petitioners' and the respondents' case and 
rebuttal briefs are addressed in the March 4, 2005, Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Live Swine from Canada (``Decision Memorandum'') which 
is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an 
appendix is a list of the issues that the petitioners and the 
respondents have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision 
Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised 
in these investigations and the corresponding recommendations in this 
public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

[[Page 12185]]

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue 
to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from 
Canada, except merchandise produced and exported by Hytek, that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
October 20, 2004, the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. The CBP shall continue to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the 
chart below. For Hytek, because its estimated weighted-average final 
dumping margin is de minimis, we are directing CBP to terminate 
suspension of liquidation of Hytek's entries and refund all bonds and 
cash deposits posted on subject merchandise produced by Hytek. These 
suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until 
further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Exporter/manufacturer               Weighted-average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board...  12.68 percent.
Hytek, Inc................................  0.53 percent (de minimis).
Premium Pork Canada, Inc..................  18.87 percent (AFA).
Excel Swine Services, Inc.................  4.64 percent.
All Others................................  10.63 percent.\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We excluded the de minimis margin and the margin based on adverse
  facts available from the calculation of the all-others rate. See
  Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, 
determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threatening 
material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that 
material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective 
order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and 
the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 4, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

General Issues

Comment 1: Perishable Agricultural Products
Comment 2: Net Income Stabilization Account
Comment 3: Allocation of Total Production Costs

Company Specific Issues

Premium Pork

Comment 4: Premium Pork Withdrawal

Ontario Pork

Comment 5: Monthly Price-Averaging
Comment 6: Advertising Expenses
Comment 7: Bank Charges
Comment 8: Credit Expenses
Comment 9: Freight Expenses

Ontario Pork Farm A

Comment 10: Cost of Feed
Comment 11: Imputed Labor Costs
Comment 12: Cost of Breeding Stock
Comment 13: Denominator Used for the General and Administrative 
Expense Ratio
Comment 14: Breeding Stock Salvage Value
Comment 15: Sows Supplied by Affiliates
Comment 16: Hogs Used for Personal Consumption
Comment 17: Per-unit Finishing Costs Adjusted by the Feeders Sold
Comment 18: Farm A's Change in Inventory Values
Comment 19: Livestock Purchases in the Indirect Cost Allocation
Comment 20: Lease of Crop Land
Comment 21: Optional Inventory Adjustment
Comment 22: Additional Accrued Cost Items
Comment 23: G&A Expenses
Comment 24: Interest Rates

Ontario Pork Farm B

Comment 25: Affiliated Feed Company
Comment 26: Tile Drainage
Comment 27: Interest Income Earned on NISA and Risk Management 
Funding
Comment 28: Prepaid Feed Costs
Comment 29: Donated Hogs
Comment 30: Misallocated Costs
Comment 31: Reconciliation Error
Comment 32: Imputed Labor
Comment 33: Interest Expense for Loan
Comment 34: Interest Income

Ontario Pork Farm C

Comment 35: Claimed Offsets for Subsidies
Comment 36: Failure to Report all Feed Costs
Comment 37: Capitalized Feed Costs
Comment 38: Errors Revealed During Verification Should be Corrected
Comment 39: Proper Treatment of ``Credit to Barn Quality'' Account
Comment 40: G&A Expenses
Comment 41: Collapsing the Operations of Affiliated Suppliers

Ontario Pork Farm D

Comment 42: Costs Related to Transporting Hogs to the Farm
Comment 43: Vaccination Costs of Resold Isoweans
Comment 44: Cost of Feed Produced by the Partners
Comment 45: Price of Corn Set by the Partners for November and 
December 2003
Comment 46: Depreciation Cost
Comment 47: G&A Offset for Land Rental Income
Comment 48: Labor Allocation
Comment 49: G&A Expenses Related to Fines

Excel

Comment 50: Mandatory Respondent Status
Comment 51: Sales Exclusions
Comment 52: Fertilizer as a Credit to the Cost of Producing Live 
Swine

Excel Rainbow Colony

Comment 53: Production Quantity
Comment 54: Insurance Premiums
Comment 55: Accrued Labor Costs
Comment 56: Productive Assets Quantity
Comment 57: Disputed Fertilizer Purchases
Comment 58: Startup Adjustment

Excel Riverbend Colony

Comment 59: Foreign Exchange Expense
Comment 60: GST Audit Adjustment
Comment 61: Labor

Excel Big Boulder

Comment 62: Rental Income G&A Offset
Comment 63: Fiscal Year G&A and Financial Expense Ratios
Comment 64: Insurance and Donations

Hytek

Comment 65: CEP Profit
Comment 66: Further Manufacturing Costs
Comment 67: Certain Payments to Owners
Comment 68: Interest Income
[FR Doc. E5-1029 Filed 3-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P