[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 208 (Friday, October 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62994-62995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18055]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-813]


Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of the 
Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on canned pineapple fruit (``CPF'') from Thailand pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''). On the 
basis of substantive responses filed by domestic and respondent 
interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset 
review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds 
that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the 
Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 3, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation 
of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on CPF from 
Thailand pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-
year (``Sunset'') Reviews, 71 FR 16,551 (April 3, 2006). The Department 
received a notice of intent to participate from Maui Pineapple Co., 
Ltd., (``Maui''), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR Sec.  
351.218(d)(1)(i). Maui claimed

[[Page 62995]]

interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a 
producer of a domestic-like product in the United States. We received a 
complete substantive response from Maui within the 30-day deadline 
specified in 19 CFR Sec.  351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department also 
received a timely and complete substantive response from respondent 
interested parties, (The Thai Food Processors' Association, Thai 
Pineapple Canning Industry Corp., Ltd., (``TPC''), Malee Sampran Public 
Co., Ltd., (``Malee''), The Siam Agro Industry Pineapples and Others 
Public Co., Ltd., (``SAICO''), Great Oriental Food Products Co., Ltd., 
(``Great Oriental''), Thai Pineapple Products and Other Fruits Co., 
Ltd., (``THAICO''), The Tipco Foods (Thailand) PCL (``TIPCO''), 
Pranburi Hotei Co., Ltd., (``PHC''), and Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co., 
Ltd., (``SIFCO'')), (collectively, the ``Respondents''), within the 
applicable deadline specified in 19 CFR Sec.  351.218(d)(3)(i). On May 
12, 2006, the Department received rebuttal comments from Maui.
    Section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) of the Department's regulations 
provides that the Department normally will conclude that respondents 
have provided adequate response to a notice of initiation where the 
Department receives complete substantive responses from respondent 
interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, by 
volume, or value, if appropriate, of the total exports of the subject 
merchandise to the United States over the five calender years preceding 
the year of publication of the notice of initiation.
    On May 22, 2006, the Department issued an adequacy determination 
stating that the Respondents did not meet the adequacy requirements. 
See Memorandum from Zev Primor to Tom Futtner ``Adequacy Determination 
in Antidumping Duty Sunset Review of Canned Pineapple from Thailand'' 
(May 22, 2006). On May 30, 2006, and June 8, 2006, we received timely 
comments pertaining to our calculation methodology from the Respondents 
and Maui, respectively. Upon review of the parties' comments, we 
modified our calculation methodology and determined that the 
Respondents met the adequacy requirements. See Memorandum from Zev 
Primor to Tom Futtner ``Correction to the Adequacy Calculation in the 
Antidumping Duty Sunset Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit from 
Thailand'' (July 12, 2006). As a result, in accordance with 19 CFR 
Sec.  351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department determined to conduct a full 
sunset review of this antidumping duty order.
    On July 25, 2006, the Department determined that the sunset review 
of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand is extraordinarily 
complicated and extended the time limit for completion of the final 
results of this review until not later than February 27, 2007, in 
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. See Extension of Time 
Limits for Preliminary Results and Final Results of the Full Sunset 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from 
Thailand, 71 FR 42,082 (July 25, 2006).

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this review is CPF, defined as pineapple 
processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, 
pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and 
cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. 
CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 
2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based 
syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar (i.e., 
juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope is dispositive.
    There have been no scope rulings for the subject order. There was 
one changed circumstances determination in which the Department 
affirmed that TIPCO is the successor-in-interest to the Thai Pineapple 
Public Co., Ltd. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 69 FR 
36,058 (June 28, 2004)

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this review are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Full Sunset 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Canned Pineapple Fruit from 
Thailand,'' (the ``Decision Memorandum'') from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 
20, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed 
in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to 
prevail if the order were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in the Decision Memorandum which is on file in room B-
099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of 
the Decision Memorandum can be viewed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that revocation of the antidumping duty 
order on CPF from Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
          Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers            Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAICO...............................................               51.16
Malee...............................................               41.74
All Others..........................................               24.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. This notice serves 
as the preliminary 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 Sec.  351.305. Timely notification of 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.

    Dated: October 20, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-18055 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S