[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 112 (Monday, June 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34082-34086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3048]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 7, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's 
Republic of China. The period of review is November 1, 2002, through 
October 31, 2003. The review covers twelve manufacturers/exporters.
    We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary 
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for this 
review are listed in the ``Final Results of the Reviews'' section 
below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhahbhrawala or Brian 
Ledgerwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202)

[[Page 34083]]

482-1784 or (202) 482-3836, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 7, 2004, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China. 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) (``Preliminary Results''). In the Preliminary Results, we 
reopened the record to accept independent third-party submissions 
regarding the factors of production data submitted by certain 
respondents in this review. On November 28, 2004, January 6, 2005, and 
January 7, 2005, we received and accepted submissions from the 
petitioners\1\ and five respondents, Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage 
Co., Ltd. (``Dongyun''), Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd. (``FHTK''), 
Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company (``Hongda''), Taiyan 
Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. (``Ziyang''), and Jining Trans-High Trading Co., 
Ltd. (``Trans-High''). We received rebuttal submissions from FHTK, 
Ziyang, and the petitioners on January 19, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Fresh Garlic Producers Association (``FGPA'') and its 
individual members. The individual members are Christopher Ranch 
L.L.C., The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, 
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2005, we conducted verification of the data submitted by 
Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. (``Linshu 
Dading'') and Sunny Import and Export Co., Ltd. (``Sunny''). 
Furthermore, on March 22, 2005, we extended to all interested parties 
an additional opportunity to comment on the intermediate-product 
methodology used to calculate normal value in the Preliminary Results 
as well as the impact that certain factors of production had on garlic 
yield. We received comments for consideration from Dongyun, FHTK, 
Hongda, Ziyang, and the petitioners on March 29, 2005, and March 30, 
2005. Trans-High provided a submission stating that it would reserve 
its comments for its case briefs.
    In April 2005, we released the reports detailing the results of the 
Linshu Dading and Sunny verifications. Also in April 2005, we received 
administrative case briefs from nine respondents, Dongyun, FHTK, 
Hongda, Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. (``Jinan Yipin''), Linshu Dading, 
Sunny, Ziyang, Trans-High, and Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. 
(``Harmoni''), and rebuttal comments from the petitioners. The 
petitioners did not file a case brief. We subsequently rejected several 
submissions made following the Preliminary Results. We determined that 
these submissions either contained untimely, new factual information, 
or contained unsolicited, new written argument re-characterizing 
existing facts on the record. Several of the parties in question filed 
objections to our decision to reject these submissions.
    On May 11, 2005, we conducted a public hearing to discuss the 
issues raised by the parties in their administrative case and rebuttal 
briefs. On May 12, 2005, the Department gave all interested parties the 
opportunity to comment on certain memoranda that we had placed on the 
record of this proceeding after the deadline for case briefs had 
passed. We received these comments from Dongyun, Hongda, FHTK, Ziyang, 
and the petitioners on May 16, 2005.
    In the Preliminary Results, we extended the time limit for the 
completion of the final results of this review, including our analysis 
of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, until May 30, 2005. 
See Preliminary Results. On May 26, 2005, we extended again the time 
limit for the completion of the final results of this review until June 
6, 2005. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Garlic from the People's 
Republic of China, 70 FR 30413 (May 26, 2005).
    We have conducted these reviews in accordance with section 751 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213 
(2005).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this antidumping duty order are all grades 
of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not 
peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in 
water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the 
addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences 
between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay.
    The scope of this order does not include the following: (a) garlic 
that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not 
exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed.
    The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and 
for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 
0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be 
excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the 
HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1) mechanically harvested and 
primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or (2) 
specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested 
and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by 
declarations to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to that 
effect.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in 
this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated 
June 6, 2005, (``Decision Memo'') which is hereby adopted by this 
notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we 
respond in the Decision Memo is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
The Decision Memo is a public document which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 in the main Department building, 
and is accessible on the Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Separate Rates

    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that Dongyun, FHTK, 
Hongda, Jinan Yipin, Linshu Dading, Sunny, Ziyang, Trans-High, and 
Harmoni met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. We 
determined that Jinxiang Hongyu Freezing and Storing Co., Ltd. 
(``Hongyu''), Linyi Sanshan Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. 
(``Linyi Sanshan''), and Tancheng County Dexing Foods Co., Ltd. 
(``Dexing Foods'') did not qualify for a separate rate and, therefore, 
are deemed to be included in the PRC-entity rate. See Preliminary 
Results, 69 FR at 70638. We have not received any information since the 
issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for 
reconsideration of these determinations.

[[Page 34084]]

The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Adverse Facts Available

Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that the PRC entity 
(including Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods) did not respond to 
the questionnaire and, therefore, failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability in the administrative review. Accordingly, we determined 
that the use of facts otherwise available in reaching our determination 
is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) and that the 
use of an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available is 
appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In accordance with 
the Department's practice, as adverse facts available, we assigned to 
the PRC entity (including Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods) the 
PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent. For detailed information on the 
Department's corroboration of this rate see Preliminary Results 69 FR 
at 70640.

The Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available to FHTK and Ziyang

    The Department has determined that two respondents, FHTK and 
Ziyang, did not provide reliable and whole information and did not act 
to the best of their ability in reporting factors of production data to 
the Department. More specifically, the Department has determined that 
FHTK and Ziyang reported untimely, contradictory and confusing 
information with respect to factors pertaining to herbicide usage, and 
with respect to other growing and harvesting factors of production. In 
addition, the Department found that FHTK and Ziyang reported per-mu 
garlic yields that appeared to be unrealistic when reviewed in light of 
record information, including their own reported factor input levels 
(e.g., seed, water, labor), the information provided by those 
companies' own expert, Dr. Ronald Voss, and the growing and harvesting 
experience of the other respondents in this review. Therefore, the 
Department concluded that the factors of production data reported by 
these companies was not reliable and could not be used. Morever, the 
Department concluded that these companies did not cooperate to the best 
of their ability in responding the Department's questionnaires. 
Accordingly, the Department has applied partial adverse facts available 
to FHTK and Ziyang's reported growing and harvesting factors of 
production in its calculations. See ``Administrative Review of Fresh 
Garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-531): 
Application of Adverse Facts Available for Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte. in 
the Final Results of the Administrative Review for the Period 11/01/02 
- 10/31/03'' dated June 6, 2005 and ``Administrative Review of Fresh 
Garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-531): 
Application of Adverse Facts Available for Taiyan Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 
in the Final Results of the Administrative Review for the Period 11/01/
02 - 10/31/03,'' dated June 6, 2005 (collectively, ``AFA Memos'').
    Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
provides that if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission 
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly 
impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information 
but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), 
the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department shall promptly inform the person 
submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to 
the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to 
remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits 
established for the completion of the review. In this administrative 
review, the Department issued its standard questionnaire and, in 
response to the inadequate responses and information provided by FHTK 
and Ziyang, supplemented the record with additional questionnaires to 
the respondents. The Department then took the unusual step of providing 
two additional opportunities for the companies to provide independent 
third-party information and comment on the record in an effort to 
support the validity of their reported FOP information. Accordingly, 
and pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department provided FHTK 
and Ziyang with numerous opportunities to remedy or explain 
deficiencies on the record.
    The Department has concluded that, within the meaning of section 
776(a) of the Act, FHTK and Ziyang have failed to provide necessary 
accurate information in response to the Department's questionnaires and 
various requests for information. More specifically, we find that FHTK 
and Ziyang withheld information or did not provide information to the 
Department pertaining to various factors of production in the form and 
manner requested by the Department. The lack of this necessary data 
impeded the conduct of the administrative review. Therefore, the data 
provided by the respondents is not reliable or usable and the use of 
facts otherwise available is appropriate.
    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 request for information. See also Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). As noted in Nippon Steel 
Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1378 (Oct. 26, 2000) 
(Nippon Steel), such a finding is supported by substantial evidence, in 
accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i), if the Department ``(1) 
articulates its reasons for concluding a party failed to act to the 
best of its ability; and (2) explains why the missing information is 
significant to the review.'' In determining if the application of 
adverse facts available is warranted, the Department may also draw some 
inferences from a pattern of behavior. See Borden, Inc. v. United 
States, 22 C.I.T. 1153, 1154 (1998). Furthermore, to determine whether 
the respondent ``cooperated'' by ``acting to the best of its ability'' 
under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department also considers the 
accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and whether the 
respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-
53820 (October 16, 1997).
    We conclude that, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, 
FHTK and Ziyang failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their 
abilities in complying with the Department's requests for information 
for certain Factors of productions and that the use of adverse facts 
available is appropriate. FHTK and Ziyang's responses to the 
Department's questions concerning herbicide and PE film contained 
significant omissions, mischaracterizations, and overall lack of 
clarity. FHTK's and Ziyang's claims that they did not use herbicide 
while reporting use of herbicide-impregnated

[[Page 34085]]

film were contradictory and confusing. Furthermore, these companies 
reported unreasonably high garlic yields per mu, despite reporting 
average or lower than average labor-per-mu rates, no herbicide usage, 
and low water usage rates. These companies' own expert, Dr. Voss, 
specifically stated that if a company had an unusually high yield and 
used no herbicide, one would expect other factors, like labor, to be 
larger-than-average to explain such a relationship. Neither the labor 
usage rate, nor the water usage rate were larger than average. This 
disparity is particularly pronounced given that these companies' farms 
are within 42 kilometers of several other respondents and, despite our 
requests for information, neither FHTK nor Ziyang provided any evidence 
on the record that would suggest a geographic or other reason for the 
disparity.
    For the Department to calculate an accurate margin in an NME 
proceeding, respondents must provide the Department with correct 
responses to its questionnaires. Despite numerous opportunities to 
provide factual information or argument to support its reported factors 
of production, FHTK and Ziyang did not act to the best of their 
abilities in providing information on the record upon which the 
Department believed it could rely. By apparently not reporting 
realistic factor of productions for some factors, these companies have 
undermined the Department's confidence in all of their reported factors 
of production harvesting data. Accordingly, we find that the 
application of an adverse inference is warranted in this case.
    In applying an adverse inference, the Department must consider that 
a respondent may not be rewarded for failing to cooperate and providing 
the agency with ``flawed'' information. See NSM Ltd. v. United States, 
170 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1312 (CIT 2001). We believe that an adverse 
inference, applied to FHTK's and Ziyang's factors of production data, 
would address satisfactorily their insufficient and/or confusing 
submissions and provide for a result that ``would not benefit [these 
companies] from [their] lack of cooperation'' in the review. See id. at 
1312. Accordingly, we have assigned FHTK and Ziyang, as partial adverse 
facts available, the highest reported usage rate from the remaining 
seven respondents (Dongyun, Harmoni, Hongda, Jinan Yipin, Linshu 
Dading, Sunny, and Trans-High) for each of the following fresh garlic 
production inputs: seed, fertilizer, PE film, herbicide, water, and 
labor.\2\ See AFA Memos. For the remaining inputs, we have used FHTK's 
and Ziyang's reported usage rates, and have calculated their margins 
using the factors of production methodology employed for the remaining 
seven respondents in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We did not apply an AFA value for pesticide for these 
respondents. Record evidence indicates that seed, water, fertilizer, 
plastic film, and labor are all essential inputs in the production 
of fresh garlic. The record is not as clear with respect to 
herbicide and pesticide. However, both Ziyang and FHTK provided 
contradictory information with respect to their use of herbicide. 
Neither respondent, however, has provided any indication of 
pesticide use. Therefore, in light of the lack of clarity with 
respect to the use of pesticide in garlic growing, we are not 
valuing pesticide as part of either Ziyang's or FHTK's garlic 
factors of productions. See Decision Memo at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary information,'' 
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. In the instant review, the Department is not relying on 
secondary information, but rather on primary information because the 
Department is calculating a dumping margin on the basis of the actual 
harvest factors of production experience of other respondents (i.e., 
using the highest harvest usage rates among all respondents). 
Therefore, this provision does not apply.

Other Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of information on the record of this review, 
comments received from the interested parties, and changes due to 
verification, we have made other changes to the margin calculations for 
all respondents.
    We altered the methodology used to calculate normal value for 
Dongyun, Hongda, and Trans-High. In the Preliminary Results, we 
calculated normal value for these three respondents using an 
intermediate-product methodology. For these final results, we have 
calculated normal value for Dongyun, Hongda, and Trans-High using the 
same factors-of-production methodology that we used for Jinan Yipin, 
Harmoni, Sunny, and Linshu Dading for the Preliminary Results. For 
further details, see Decision Memo at Comment 1 and the memoranda 
regarding ``Analysis for the Final Results of the Administrative Duty 
Order on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China'' for 
Dongyun, Hongda, and Trans-High, dated June 6, 2005.
    For all of our respondents for which we are calculating a dumping 
margin, we have revalued several of the surrogate values used in the 
Preliminary Results. The values that were modified for these final 
results are those for attachment clips, water, cold storage, ocean 
freight, foreign brokerage, and the surrogate financial ratios for 
overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit. 
For further details see ``Factors Valuations for the Final Results of 
the Administrative Review,'' dated June 6, 2004. Also, for each 
respondent for which we calculated dumping margins involving an offset 
for the sale of garlic sprouts, we adjusted our programs to apply the 
by-product offset to normal value, instead of to cost of manufacturing, 
as was done in the Preliminary Results.
    In addition, we have made some company-specific changes since the 
Preliminary Results. Specifically, we have incorporated, where 
applicable, post-preliminary clarifications, pre-verification 
corrections, and verification findings for Sunny, Linshu Dading, and 
Jinan Yipin and performed clerical error corrections for Dongyun, 
Harmoni, Hongda, Jinan Yipin, Linshu Dading, and Sunny. For further 
details on these company-specific changes, see Decision Memo at 
Comments 15 and 16, respectively. We also modified our calculation of 
the constructed export price profit ratio for Harmoni and Jinan Yipin. 
See Decision Memo at Comment 14.
    For further information detailing all of these changes, see the 
memoranda regarding ``Analysis for the Final Results of the 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China'' for Dongyun, FHTK, Harmoni, 
Hongda, Jinan Yipin, Linshu Dading, Sunny, Trans-High, and Ziyang, 
dated June 6, 2005.

Final Results of the Reviews

    The Department has determined that the following final dumping 
margins exist for the period November 1, 2002, through October 31, 
2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                      Exporter                         percentage margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd........................               17.01
Jinxiang Dongyun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd..........               31.26
Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd........................              315.90
Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company........                3.05

[[Page 34086]]

 
Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co.,                   25.95
 Ltd................................................
Sunny Import & Export Limited.......................               10.86
Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd..........................              179.06
Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd..................                   0
Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd....................               18.97
PRC-wide rate*......................................              376.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* includes Jinxiang Hongyu and Storing Co., Ltd., Linyi Sanshan Import
  and Export Trading Co., Ltd. And Tancheng County Dexing Foods Co.,
  Ltd.

Duty Assessment and Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final 
results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated 
importer-specific assessment rates for fresh garlic from the PRC. In 
order to be consistent, for these final results, we have applied the 
same assessment rate calculation methodology for all respondents.\3\ 
Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins for each importer by 
the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during 
the POR to calculate a per-unite assessment amount. In this and future 
reviews, we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment 
rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on 
each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In our Preliminary Results, for those respondents who 
reported an entered value, we divided the total dumping margins for 
the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed 
sales for each applicable importer to calculate an ad-valorem 
assessment rate. For respondents who did not report an entered value 
for their sales, we divided the total dumping margins for each 
importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that 
importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the following cash-deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these final results of the administrative review 
for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for 
subject merchandise exported by Dongyun, FHTK, Hongda, Jinan Yipin, 
Linshu Dading, Sunny, Ziyang, Trans-High, and Harmoni, the cash-deposit 
rate will be that established in these final results of review; (2) for 
all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been 
found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent; (3) for all non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable 
to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Cash Deposits Resulting from Subsequent Review Segments

    For subsequent review segments, we will establish and collect a 
per-kilogram cash- deposit amount which will be equivalent to the 
company-specific dumping margin published in those future reviews. 
Specifically, the following deposit requirement will be effective upon 
completion of subsequent review segments of this proceeding for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for 
subject merchandise exported by reviewed respondents, the per-kilogram 
cash-deposit rate will be the total amount of dumping margins 
calculated for the POR divided by the total quantity sold during the 
POR; (2) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have 
not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate 
will be the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent; (3) for all non-PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporter who supplied that exporter.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a final 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 the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.402(f)(3) failure to comply with this requirement could result in 
the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties 
occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    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 as explained in the administrative protective order itself. Timely 
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    These final results of administrative review and notice are issued 
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3) and 777(i) of the 
Act.

    Dated: June 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1

Decision Memorandum

1. Intermediate Input Methodology
2. Valuation of Garlic Seed
3. Valuation of Water
4. Valuation of Leased Land
5. Surrogate Financial Ratios
6. Valuation of Garlic Sprouts
7. Valuation of Cartons
8. Valuation of Plastic Jars and Lids
9. Valuation of Attachment Clips
10. Valuation of Cold Storage
11. Valuation of Ocean Freight
12. Calculation of Surrogate Wage Rate

Company Specific Issues

13. Correct Calculation of CEP Profit
14. Use of Most Up-To-Date Information
15: Clerical and Programming Errors
16: Educational Meetings and Other Non-Used Information on the Record
17: Partial Facts Available
[FR Doc. E5-3048 Filed 6-10-05; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S