[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 214 (Monday, November 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64930-64938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18662]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-851]


Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has 
preliminarily determined that sales by the respondents in this review, 
covering the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, have 
been made at prices less than normal value (``NV''). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department invites 
interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Terre Keaton, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
1766 and (202) 482-1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (64 FR 8308).
    On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period February 1, 
2005, through January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006).
    On February 28, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
petitioner \1\ requested a review of 13 companies (including Guangxi 
Eastwing and Primera Harvest which submitted their own requests for 
review).\2\ In addition, Raoping CXF Foods (``Raoping CXF'') (i.e., 
Guangxi Eastwing's supplier) requested its own review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom 
Trade which includes the following domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, 
Inc., Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, and Sunny 
Dell Foods, Inc.
    \2\ These companies are: (1) Blue Field (Sichuan) Food 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Blue Field'');
    (2) China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export 
Corporation (``China National''); (3) China Processed Food Import & 
Export Company (``COFCO''); (4) COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial 
Co., Ltd. (``COFCO Zhangzhou''); (5) Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. 
(``Gerber''); (6) Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (``Green 
Fresh''); (7) Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc. (``Guangxi 
Hengxian''); (8) Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd. (``Guangxi 
Eastwing''); (9) Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. (``Guangxi 
Yulin''); (10) Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co., Ltd. (``Primera 
Harvest''); (11) Raoping Yucun Canned Foods Factory (``Raoping 
Yucun''); (12) Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Co., Ltd. (``Jiufa''); 
and (13) Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd. (``Xiamen 
Jiahua'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 5, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of initiation of this administrative review covering the 
companies listed in the requests received from the interested parties. 
See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 
17077 (April 5, 2006) (``Initiation Notice'').
    Prior to the notice of initiation, the Department issued quantity 
and value (``Q&V'') questionnaires to the firms for which a review had 
been requested.\3\ This questionnaire requested the quantity and value 
for the identified companies that produced and/or exported certain 
preserved mushrooms from the PRC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In two prior administrative reviews of this antidumping duty 
order, the Department collapsed COFCO with COFCO Zhangzhou, Xiamen 
Jiahua, Fujian Zishan Group, Co., Ltd. (``Fujian Zishan''), and 
Fujian Yu Xing Fruits & Vegetable Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (``Yu Xing''). 
See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Sixth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 54635, 54637 (September 9, 2004) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (``PRC 
Mushrooms 4th AR''); and Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 
10965, 10971 (March 7, 2005) as affirmed in Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005) (``PRC Mushrooms 5th AR''). 
During the POR, COFCO was the only one of the COFCO affiliated 
companies to export subject merchandise to the United States.
    \4\ The Department inadvertently did not issue a Q&V 
questionnaire to Raoping CXF prior to initiating this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the notice of initiation, the Department again requested Q&V 
information and provided additional opportunity for all companies 
covered by the review to respond to this request. In response, four 
companies responded that they exported subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR: (1) COFCO; (2) Guangxi Hengxian; (3) 
Primera Harvest; and (4) Guangxi Eastwing. The following five companies 
filed no-shipment claims: (1) Blue Field; (2) Gerber; (3) Jiufa; (4) 
Raoping CXF; \5\ and (5) Raoping Yucun. The two remaining companies, 
Green Fresh and Guangxi Yulin, either did not submit a properly filed 
Q&V response or did not respond.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Raoping CXF subsequently withdrew its review request on 
April 26, 2006.
    \6\ With respect to Green Fresh, we issued the initial Q&V 
questionnaire on March 9, 2006, and follow-up letters on April 20 
and 25, and May 4, 2006, to this company informing it that its Q&V 
response was not properly filed in accordance with the Department's 
regulations, but Green Fresh failed to correct its filing 
deficiencies (see Memorandum to the File dated May 23, 2006, for 
further discussion on this matter). With respect to Guangxi Yulin, 
we issued the initial Q&V questionnaire on March 9, 2006, and re-
issued the Q&V questionnaire to it on April 6, and May 5, 2006, but 
received no response (see Memorandum to the File dated May 23, 2006, 
for further discussion on this matter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it was not practicable for the Department to individually 
examine all of the companies covered by the review, the Department 
limited its examination for these preliminary results to the largest 
producers/exporters that could reasonably be examined, accounting for 
the greatest possible export volume,

[[Page 64931]]

pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''). Therefore, the Department selected COFCO and Guangxi 
Hengxian as the mandatory respondents in this review and designated 
Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest as Section A Respondents. See 
Memorandum From Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Office Director, to 
Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled 2005-2006 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents, dated 
June 8, 2006. Accordingly, on June 9, 2006, we issued the full 
antidumping duty questionnaire to COFCO and Guangxi Hengxian and only 
the section A questionnaire to Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest.
    On May 10, 2006, the Department requested documentation from CBP 
for specific entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the 
United States during the POR in order to examine Gerber's no-shipment 
claim. On June 16, 2006, the Department received the requested entry 
documentation from CBP. As a result of reviewing the CBP entry 
documentation, the Department issued Gerber a letter on June 21, 2006, 
asking questions regarding its claim that it made no shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Specifically, 
the Department asked Gerber if it had any affiliates in Hong Kong 
through which it shipped subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. In response to the Department's June 21, 2006, letter, 
Gerber stated in its July 11, 2006, submission that it had no 
affiliates in Hong Kong through which subject merchandise was exported 
to or imported into the United States during the POR. As a result of 
conducting further independent research on this matter, the Department 
issued Gerber a second letter on July 31, 2006, which contained 
documentation indicating that Gerber indeed had an undisclosed 
affiliate registered in Hong Kong during the POR. Combined with the 
fact that this same Hong Kong affiliate also made shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, the Department's July 
31, 2006, letter asked Gerber to explain why it did not mention this 
Hong Kong affiliate and why it did not disclose that its affiliate was 
involved in sales of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR. Gerber did not submit a response to the Department's July 31, 
2006, letter by the specified deadline (i.e., August 14, 2006). 
Therefore, the Department issued Gerber another letter on August 15, 
2006, which stated that the Department intended to resort to adverse 
facts available as a result of Gerber's failure to respond to the 
Department's letter of July 31, 2006. Gerber did not respond to the 
Department's August 15 letter (see September 6, 2006, Memorandum to the 
File, entitled Efforts to Provide Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. With 
the Department's July 31, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire).
    On August 17, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Blue Field, 
Raoping CXF, Raoping Yucun, and Shandong Jiufa because these companies 
did not have shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR, or withdrew their request for a review in a timely 
manner. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 48911 (August 22, 2006).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Mandatory Respondents

    On June 9, 2006, the Department issued the full antidumping duty 
questionnaire to COFCO and Guangxi Hengxian. On July 21, 2006, COFCO 
submitted its section A questionnaire response (``section A 
response''). On August 2, 2006, COFCO submitted its sections C and D 
questionnaire response (``sections C and D response''). Guangxi 
Hengxian did not submit a questionnaire response.\7\ The Department 
issued Guangxi Hengxian a letter on August 7, 2006, which stated that 
the Department intends to resort to adverse facts available as a result 
of Guangxi Hengxian's failure to respond to the Department's June 8, 
2006, antidumping duty questionnaire. Guangxi Hengxian did not respond 
to the Department's August 7 letter. See September 6, 2006, Memorandum 
to the File, entitled Efforts to Provide Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light 
Foods, Inc. With the Department's June 9, 2006, Antidumping Duty 
Questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The original deadline for the mandatory respondents to 
submit their response to all sections of the Department's June 8, 
2006, antidumping duty questionnaire was July 17, 2006. However, the 
Department subsequently extended the section A response deadline 
until July 21, 2006, and the sections C and D response deadline 
until August 2, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 2, 2006, the Department issued COFCO a section A 
supplemental questionnaire and it submitted its response on August 30, 
2006 (``supplemental section A response''). On August 10, 2006, the 
Department issued COFCO a sections C and D supplemental questionnaire 
and it submitted its response on September 7, 2006. On September 14, 
2006, the Department issued COFCO another sections C and D supplemental 
questionnaire and COFCO submitted its response on September 25, 2006.

Section A Respondents

    On June 8, 2006, the Department issued the section A questionnaire 
to Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest. Guangxi Eastwing and Primera 
Harvest submitted their section A questionnaire responses on June 13, 
and July 7, 2006, respectively.
    On July 20 and 24, 2006, the Department issued Primera Harvest and 
Guangxi Eastwing a section A supplemental questionnaire, respectively. 
Both companies submitted their supplemental responses on August 3, 
2006. On August 23, 2006, the Department issued Primera Harvest a 
second section A supplemental questionnaire, to which it responded on 
September 7, 2006.

Surrogate Country and Factors

    On May 4, 2006, the Department identified five countries, including 
India, that are comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development to use in this review. On July 13, 2006, the Department 
solicited comments on surrogate country selection from interested 
parties. The Department received no comments from the interested 
parties. See the ``Normal Value'' section below for further detail.
    On September 15, 2006,\8\ the Department received surrogate-value 
information from COFCO. For a detailed discussion of the Department's 
selection of surrogate values and financial ratios, see ``Factor 
Valuation'' section below. See also Memorandum from the Team to the 
File, Re: 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China--Factors 
Valuation For the Preliminary Results (``Factor Valuation Memo''), 
dated October 31, 2006, which is on file in CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ September 5, 2006, was the deadline for submitting surrogate 
value information for consideration in the preliminary results as 
specified in the Department's July 13, 2006, letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, 
whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The 
certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species 
Agaricus

[[Page 64932]]

bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ``Certain 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. Certain 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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, 39C F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party: 
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; 
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states 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, ``in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.'' See also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316 at 870 (1994).

Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, and Gerber

(A) Facts Available
    As stated above, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, and 
Gerber each withheld information requested by the Department by not 
submitting a response to the Department's questionnaires.
    Green Fresh and Guangxi Yulin failed to properly respond to the 
Department's requests for Q&V information. The information requested in 
the Department's Q&V questionnaire was critical and necessary for 
selecting mandatory respondents in the review. Specifically, Green 
Fresh failed to submit a properly filed Q&V response despite being 
provided numerous opportunities to do so. Guangxi Yulin did not attempt 
to file a Q&V response at all.
    Guangxi Hengxian did not submit a response to the Department's 
antidumping duty questionnaire. Because Guangxi Hengxian was selected 
as a mandatory respondent for this review, the information requested in 
the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire is critical and 
necessary to calculate Guangxi Hengxian's margin.
    As stated above in the ``Background'' section, Gerber did not 
respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire which further 
attempted to examine Gerber's claim that it made no shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Specifically, 
based on documentation obtained from CBP, the Department had reason to 
believe that Gerber exported subject merchandise to the United States 
through one of its affiliates located in Hong Kong. As a result of this 
discovery, the Department provided Gerber with an opportunity to 
explain whether Gerber used its previously undisclosed Hong Kong-based 
affiliate to make sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. market 
during the POR. Gerber failed to respond to the Department's second 
request for information. Gerber withheld requested information from the 
Department and impeded this proceeding because of its failure to 
participate in the instant review.
    Therefore, the Department has no choice but to rely on the facts 
otherwise available in order to determine a margin for Green Fresh, 
Guangxi Hengxian, Guangxi Yulin, and Gerber pursuant to section 
776(a)(2) of the Act because they failed to provide information 
requested by the Department. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 18369 (April 11, 2005), (``because this 
company refused to participate in this administrative review, we find 
that, * * * the use of total facts available is appropriate''); see 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From Japan, 68 FR 71072 
(December 22, 2003), (``Since UC and DNP withheld information requested 
by the Department, the Department has no choice but to rely on the 
facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for these 
parties''). Because each of the above-mentioned respondents failed to 
respond to the Department's questionnaires, the Department could not 
determine whether Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian, or Guangxi 
Yulin is eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, we are not granting 
these companies a separate rate and are applying the PRC-wide rate to 
all four companies.
(B) Adverse Inference
    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
states that if an interested party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the Department, the Department, in reaching the 
applicable determination under section 776(b) of the Act, may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available. In the instant proceeding, we 
find it appropriate to apply an adverse inference in selecting from 
among the facts otherwise available for Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi 
Hengxian, and Guangxi Yulin, which are part of the PRC-wide entity. By 
failing to submit a response to the Department's questionnaires, all 
four above-mentioned companies have failed to cooperate to the best of 
their ability in this proceeding. Accordingly, we find

[[Page 64933]]

that an adverse inference is warranted. By applying AFA, we ensure that 
the companies that fail to cooperate will not obtain a more favorable 
result than those companies that complied fully with the Department's 
requests in this review.

The PRC Entity

    As mentioned, four exporters named in the notice of initiation did 
not respond to the Department's request for information. The PRC-wide 
rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries 
from PRC exporters that have their own calculated rate. Companies that 
have not demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate are 
appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, 
we determine it is necessary to review the PRC-wide entity because 
these four PRC exporters are subject to the instant proceeding. 
Pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department determines 
that it must use facts otherwise available for the PRC-wide entity 
because necessary information is not available on the record of this 
proceeding due to the failure of the PRC-wide entity, including the 
four PRC exporters mentioned, to provide responses to the Department's 
requests for information in this proceeding. Because the PRC-wide 
entity did not respond to requests for information in the form or 
manner requested, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the 
Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary 
results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In addition, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide entity failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information. As noted above, the PRC-wide entity failed to 
respond to the Department's requests for information, despite repeated 
requests that it do so. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to 
participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we 
ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they 
cooperated fully in this review. An adverse inference may include 
reliance on information derived from the petition, the final 
determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other 
information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. It is 
the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any segment 
of the proceeding as total AFA when a respondent fails to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. See Honey from the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results and Final Rescission In Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 38873 (July 6, 2005). Specifically, as 
AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-entity 198.63 percent, which is the 
current PRC-wide rate. See the ``Corroboration'' section below for a 
discussion of the probative value of the PRC-wide 198.63 percent rate.

Corroboration of AFA Rate for PRC-Wide Entity, Including Gerber, Green 
Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian and Guangxi Yulin

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, the information it applies as facts 
available. To be considered corroborated, information must be found to 
be both reliable and relevant. We are applying as AFA the PRC-wide 
rate, which is the highest rate from any segment of this administrative 
proceeding, and is the highest rate from the petition in 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). This AFA rate has not changed 
since the original LTFV determination.
    For purposes of corroboration, the Department will consider whether 
the AFA rate is both reliable and relevant. The AFA rate we are 
applying for the current review was found to be reliable in reviews 
subsequent to the LTFV investigation, including the two most recently 
completed reviews. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China: Partial Rescission and Preliminary Results of Sixth 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 11183, 11186 (March 6, 2006) and affirmed 
in Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Sixth Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 40477, 40478 (July 17, 2006) (``PRC Mushrooms 6th AR''); 
and PRC Mushrooms 5th AR, 70 FR at 10969 (to corroborate the AFA margin 
of 198.63 percent, in the 5th review the Department compared the AFA 
margin to calculated margins for certain respondents and found that 
198.63 percent was within the range of margins for individual sales of 
identical and/or similar products). Furthermore, no information has 
been presented in the current review that calls into question the 
reliability of the currently-applied PRC-wide rate.
    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 accordance with the 
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be 
corroborated (that it have probative value). Consequently, we have 
assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise from all 
companies subject to the PRC-wide rate, including Gerber, Green Fresh, 
Guangxi Hengxian, and Guangxi Yulin.

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

[[Page 64934]]

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.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See PRC Mushrooms 5th AR, 70 FR at 10969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In prior administrative reviews involving COFCO, the Department has 
found COFCO to be affiliated with Yu Xing as a result of its direct 
ownership and control in Yu Xing and affiliated with Fujian Zishan 
through its parent company, China National, and Xiamen Jiahua. 
Moreover, the Department has also found in prior reviews that COFCO is 
affiliated with another preserved mushroom producer, COFCO Zhangzhou. 
See PRC Mushrooms 5th AR, 70 FR at 10969.
    COFCO claims that it is no longer affiliated with Fujian Zishan 
because Xiamen Jiahua sold all of its ownership shares in Fujian Zishan 
at the beginning of this POR (see page A-5 of COFCO's section A 
response). The Department has examined whether COFCO and the entities 
noted above are still affiliated for purposes of determining whether 
they should be collapsed in this review. For further discussion on this 
matter, see Memorandum From James P. Maeder, Jr., Office Director, to 
Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, entitled Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Whether To Continue To 
Collapse COFCO with Some or All of its Affiliated Companies, dated 
October 31, 2006 (``Affiliation/Collapsing Memo'').
    Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find that during this POR, 
COFCO, China National, COFCO Zhangzhou, Xiamen Jiahua, and Yu Xing were 
affiliated through the common control of COFCO's parent company, 
pursuant to sections 771(33)(F) and (G) of the Act. However, with 
respect to Fujian Zishan, we find that during the POR, Fujian Zishan 
was no longer affiliated with the above-mentioned companies based on 
the facts discussed above. See Affiliation/Collapsing Memo for further 
discussion.

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. 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 they are able to manipulate price or production as 
a result of control over the production and sales activities of 
affiliates whose operations are intertwined.
    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 a 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 a 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, if there is evidence of significant potential for 
manipulation between or among affiliates which produce and/or export 
similar or identical merchandise, whether or not all such merchandise 
is exported to the United States, the Department may find such evidence 
sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in a NME context in order 
to determine whether all or some of those affiliates 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 find that the first and second collapsing criteria are met with 
respect to COFCO's affiliated producers COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing 
because these producers 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. See factors of production data submitted by each company in 
COFCO's section D response. We find that the third collapsing criterion 
is also met with respect to COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing because COFCO 
and China National, which wholly owns COFCO, have significant ownership 
in and control over the operations of COFCO Zhangzhou and Yu Xing. They 
also have shared management and intertwined operations. Therefore, we 
find that there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or 
production between these two affiliated producers of the subject 
merchandise. We also note that during the POR COFCO and Zhangzhou and 
Yu Xing were legally merged into a single company. See Affiliation/
Collapsing Memo for further discussion.
    In addition, based on the reasons mentioned in the Affiliation/
Collapsing Memo and the guidance of 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have 
preliminarily collapsed COFCO, China National, Xiamen Jiahua and COFCO 
Zhangzhou/YuXing because there is a significant potential for 
manipulation of sales decisions between these parties that are 
exporters of the subject merchandise or have the ability to export. 
Xiamen Jiahua, a preserved mushroom exporter, is also owned, in part, 
by China National which wholly owns COFCO. Yu Xing, which is treated as 
a single entity with the producer COFCO Zhangzhou, also has export 
rights and has directly exported since obtaining those export rights. 
Consequently, we have considered COFCO and the four affiliates 
mentioned above as a single entity for purposes of determining whether 
or not the collapsed entity as a whole is entitled to a separate rate. 
With respect to Fujian Zishan, as mentioned we find this company to be 
no longer affiliated with COFCO and it is, therefore, not part of the 
collapsed entity.\11\ This decision is specific to the facts presented 
in this review and is based on several considerations, including the 
structure of the collapsed entity, the level of control between and 
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

[[Page 64935]]

the facts, taken as a whole, support such a finding (see ``Separate 
Rates'' section below for further discussion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Accordingly, Fujian Zishan is not subject to this review 
and the Department has not conducted a separate rates analysis on 
this company. Fujian Zishan, therefore, is not entitled to a 
separate rate in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate-Rates Determination

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to governmental control and, thus, should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate). One respondent 
in this review, Primera Harvest, is wholly owned by a company located 
outside the PRC. Therefore, an additional separate-rates analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether Primera Harvest's export activities 
are independent from government control. (See e.g., Polyethylene Retail 
Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 54021 (September 13, 
2006), which cites to 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)).
    The other Section A respondent, Guangxi Eastwing is a limited 
liability company, whereas the mandatory respondent, COFCO, is owned by 
its affiliate China National, which is owned by ``all of the people.'' 
COFCO also owns, in part, two preserved mushroom producers, COFCO 
Zhangzhou and Yu Xing. As discussed above in the ``Collapsing'' section 
of this notice, we have preliminarily considered COFCO, China National, 
Yu Xing, COFCO Zhangzhou, and Xiamen Jiahua a collapsed entity.
    Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether 
the export activities of Guangxi Eastwing and COFCO's collapsed entity 
are independent from government control. To establish whether a 
respondent is sufficiently independent from governmental control of its 
export activities so as to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under 
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) at Comment 1, 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, 22587 (May 2, 1994) 
(Silicon Carbide). In accordance with 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. Absence of 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.
    The COFCO collapsed entity and Guangxi Eastwing 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, 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''); and the 1992 ``Regulations for 
Transformation of Operational Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial 
Enterprises'' (``Business Operation Provisions''). (See October 31, 
2006, 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. Absence of 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, 56 FR at 22587 (May 2, 1994). Therefore, the 
Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is 
critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a 
degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from 
assigning separate rates.
    The Department typically considers the following four factors in 
evaluating whether a 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 agency; (2) whether 
the respondent has the 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 FR at 22586-87 and 
Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR 22545.
    The affiliates in COFCO's collapsed entity (where applicable) and 
Guangxi Eastwing have 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 each respondent's 
pricing practices 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 the COFCO 
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. Moreover, with respect to the affiliates included in the 
COFCO collapsed entity, we have assigned to all of them the same 
antidumping rate in these preliminary results for the above-mentioned 
reasons.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondents' sales of subject merchandise 
were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price''

[[Page 64936]]

and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated EPs for sales by COFCO to the United States because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the 
United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States 
with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States) 
prior to importation, and constructed export-price methodology was not 
otherwise indicated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c), we made 
deductions from the net sales price for foreign inland freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling. Each of these services was provided by 
a NME vendor and, thus, as explained in the ``Normal Value'' section 
below, we based the deductions for these movement charges on values 
from a surrogate country.
    For the reasons stated in the ``Normal Value'' section below, we 
selected India as the primary surrogate country. To value brokerage and 
handling, the Department used an average of the publicly summarized 
data from the following two sources which we have placed on the record 
of this review: (1) Data reported in the U.S. sales listing in the 
February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (``Essar Steel'') 
in the antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, A-533-820 (covering December 
2003-November 2004), and (2) data reported in Pidilite Industries' 
March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the antidumping 
duty investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, A-533-838 
(covering the period November 2002-September 2003). We identify the 
source used to value foreign inland freight in the ``Normal Value'' 
section of this notice, below. We adjusted these values, as 
appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the 
effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation 
adjustments for these values using the wholesale price indices 
(``WPI'') for India as published in the International Financial 
Statistics Online Service maintained by the Statistics Department of 
the International Monetary Fund at the Web site http://www.imfstatistics.org (``IFS'').
    COFCO claims that its affiliated producer, Yu Xing, did not incur 
an expense for the glass jars and caps used to export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR because its U.S. 
customers provided these items to Yu Xing free-of-charge. In response 
to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, COFCO provided 
documentation which sufficiently supported its claim that (1) its U.S. 
customers contracted with PRC glass jar and cap producers and that 
these producers had indeed delivered these items to Yu Xing in a 
certain quantity on a certain date, free-of-charge; and (2) that these 
free-of-charge glass jars and caps were used in the required quantities 
for certain subject merchandise sold to its applicable U.S. customers 
during the POR.
    Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department has 
adjusted the U.S. price of certain preserved mushroom transactions 
reported by COFCO by assigning Indian surrogate values to the glass jar 
and caps used in those preserved mushroom transactions to reflect its 
U.S. customers' expenditures for these items. This preliminary decision 
on this matter is consistent with the Department's decision in PRC 
Mushrooms 5th AR, 70 FR at 10973.

Normal Value

    For exports from NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-
production (``FOP'') methodology if the subject merchandise is exported 
from an NME country and available 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. Section 351.408 of 
the Department's regulations sets forth the methodology the Department 
uses to calculate the NV of merchandise exported from NME countries. 
The Department has treated the PRC as a NME country in every proceeding 
involving the PRC. Because none of the parties to this proceeding 
contested such treatment, we calculated NV in accordance with sections 
773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOPs which 
COFCO's suppliers used in producing certain preserved mushrooms 
include, but are not limited to, the following inputs: (1) Hours of 
labor required, (2) quantities of raw materials employed, (3) amounts 
of energy and other utilities consumed, and (4) representative capital 
costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the Department valued the FOPs, to the extent possible, using 
the costs of the FOP in one or more market-economy countries that are 
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and 
are significant producers of comparable merchandise. We determined that 
India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross national 
product and the national distribution of labor. Furthermore, India is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, 
Acting Office Director, Office 2, dated May 4, 2006, regarding 
potential surrogate countries, which is available in the CRU--Public 
File.
    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 which the respondent claims were provided to it purportedly free 
of charge). As explained in the ``Export Price'' section above, COFCO 
sufficiently supported its claim that each of its applicable U.S. 
customers provided its affiliated supplier, Yu Xing, the glass jars and 
caps, which were used for the preserved mushrooms sold to those same 
U.S. customers free-of-charge. For this reason, we have adjusted, where 
applicable, COFCO's reported U.S. prices to include the value of glass 
jars and caps for certain sales of preserved mushrooms in these 
preliminary results. In addition to making the above-referenced 
adjustment to COFCO's U.S. prices reported for sales of the subject 
merchandise which contained glass jars and caps, section 773(c)(3) of 
the Act 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 glass jars and caps usage 
amounts reported by COFCO for specific preserved mushrooms by using an 
Indian surrogate value for each input (see Factor Valuation Memo).
    In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of 
calculating NV, we attempted to value the FOPs using surrogate values 
that were in effect during the POR. If we were unable to obtain 
surrogate values that were in effect during the POR, we adjusted the 
values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between 
the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or 
deflation adjustments for all factor values, as applicable, except 
labor, using the WPI for the appropriate surrogate country as published 
in the IFS. We valued the FOPs as follows:
    (1) Except for rice straw, cow manure, and steam coal, we valued 
all reported material inputs using Indian import data from the World 
Trade Atlas (``WTA'')

[[Page 64937]]

for February 2005 through January 2006, in accordance with the 
Department's established practice in this case (see e.g., PRC Mushrooms 
6th AR, 71 FR at 40477, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comments 1 through 6).
    (2) We valued rice straw using data from the 2005-2006 financial 
statement of Flex Foods Limited (``Flex Foods''), an Indian producer of 
the subject merchandise.
    (3) We valued cow manure using data from the 2004-2005 financial 
statement of Agro Dutch Industries Limited (``Agro Dutch''), an Indian 
producer of the subject merchandise.
    (4) We valued electricity using rates from Energy Prices and Taxes: 
Second Quarter 2003 (Energy Prices), published by the International 
Energy Agency. We valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation. We valued steam coal using the Teri 
Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (2004).
    (5) We valued labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), using 
the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import 
Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected 
NME Countries, revised in November 2005, and posted to Import 
Administration's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages. The source of 
this wage rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, 
International Labour Office, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing (http://laborsta.ilo.org). The years of the reported wage 
rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate 
does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types 
of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and 
types of labor reported by the respondent.
    (6) We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit using the 2004-2005 and 
2005-2006 financial statements of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods. From this 
information, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage 
of direct materials, labor, and energy expenses, SG&A expenses as a 
percentage of the total cost of manufacturing, and profit as a 
percentage of the sum of the total cost of manufacturing and SG&A 
expenses.
    (7) We used truck rates published at http://www.infreight.com to 
value freight services provided to transport (a) the finished product 
to the port; and (b) direct materials, packing materials, and coal from 
the suppliers of the inputs to the producers.
    For further discussion of the surrogate values we used for these 
preliminary results of review, see Memorandum From Terre Keaton 
Regarding Factors-of-Production Valuation for Preliminary Results 
(October 31, 2006), which is on file in the CRU--Public File.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through 
January 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Processed Food Import & Export Company (which               195.85
 includes its affiliates China National Cereals, Oils &
 Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation, COFCO
 (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co., Ltd., Xiamen Jiahua
 Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd., and Fujian Yu Xing
 Fruit & Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co.)\12\.......
Primera Harvest Co., Ltd................................          195.85
Guangxi Eastwing Co., Ltd...............................          195.85
PRC-Wide Rate (which applies to the following companies           198.63
 that failed to qualify for a separate rate in this
 review: Gerber, Green Fresh, Guangxi Hengxian and
 Guangxi Yulin).........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above in the ``Separate-Rates Determination'' section of 
this notice, Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest both qualify for a 
separate rate in this review. Moreover, as stated above in the 
``Background'' section of this notice, we limited this review by 
selecting the largest exporters. As section A respondents, Guangxi 
Eastwing and Primera Harvest will be assigned the weighted-average 
dumping margin based on the calculated margins of mandatory respondents 
which are not de minimis or based on AFA, in accordance with Department 
practice. See e.g., Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's 
Republic of China, 62 FR 9160, 9174 (February 28, 1997). Accordingly, 
we have assigned these two respondents the dumping margin assigned to 
the COFCO collapsed entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For this review, we consider COFCO, COFCO Zhangzhou, 
Xiamen, Jiahua, and Yu Xing to constitute a single entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice the calculations it performed for the preliminary results. 
An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication 
of the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties 
may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication 
of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), 
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five 
days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments 
are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the 
issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the 
public version of those comments. We will issue a memorandum 
identifying the date of a hearing, if one is requested. Unless the 
deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the 
parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. For the COFCO collapsed entity, we have calculated customer-
specific antidumping duty assessment amounts for subject merchandise 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. We 
calculated these assessment amounts because there is no information on 
the record which identifies entered values or the importers of record 
for the COFCO collapsed entity's reported U.S. sales transactions. For 
Guangxi Eastwing and Primera Harvest (i.e., respondents which are being 
assigned the margin calculated for the COFCO

[[Page 64938]]

collapsed entity), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
these company's entries equal to the margin these companies receive in 
the final results, regardless of the importer or customer.
    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 
days after the date of publication of the final results of review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, 
we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment amounts, 
calculated as described above, on each of the applicable entries during 
the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will apply to all shipments of 
certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies named above will be the rates for those firms established in 
the final results of this administrative review; (2) for any previously 
reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this 
review, with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
company-specific rate established in the most recent segment of this 
proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will 
be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review; 
and (4) the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject 
merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    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.
    We are issuing and publishing the preliminary results determination 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-18662 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P