[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44112-44122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-337-806


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Certain Individually Quick 
Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review

[[Page 44113]]

of the antidumping duty order on certain individually quick frozen 
(IQF) red raspberries from Chile. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 
2005, through June 30, 2006. This review covers sales of IQF red 
raspberries by six producers/exporters. We preliminarily find that, 
during the POR, sales of IQF red raspberries were made below normal 
value. Also, we intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with 
respect to Fruticola Olmue S.A. (Olmue) and Vital Berry Marketing S.A. 
(VBM). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala (VBM), David Layton 
(Valles Andinos), Yasmin Nair (Arlavan, Vitafoods), David Neubacher 
(Valle Frio), Shane Subler (Olmue), or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1784, (202) 482-0371, (202) 
482-3813, (202) 482-5823, (202) 482-0189, or (202) 482-0196, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 9, 2002, the Department of Commerce (Department) published 
an antidumping duty order on certain IQF red raspberries from Chile. 
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: IQF Red Raspberries From Chile, 
67 FR 45460 (July 9, 2002). On July 3, 2006, the Department published a 
notice of opportunity to request administrative review of this order. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 
37890 (July 3, 2006).
    On July 31, 2006, we received a request for review of 60 companies 
from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and 
each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; 
Maberry Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). 
We also received requests for review from Arlavan S.A. (Arlavan), 
Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (Vitafoods), Olmue, Sociedad 
Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda. (Valle Frio)\1\, Valles Andinos S.A. 
(Valles Andinos), and VBM,\2\ on July 31, 2006. Santiago Comercio 
Exterior S.A. (``SANCO'') requested a deferral of administrative review 
on July 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the third administrative review, the Department collapsed 
Valle Frio with its affiliated producer, Agricola Framparque 
(Framparque). See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, 
``Collapsing of Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.,'' dated 
July 31, 2006. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Certain 
Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile (unchanged in 
final) (Third Administrative Review of Raspberries from Chile), 71 
FR 45000, 45001 (Aug. 8, 2006). There have been no change in the 
facts since then, so for the instant administrative review, we are 
treating Valle Frio and Framparque as a single entity.
    \2\ These six companies were also included in the petitioners' 
July 31, 2006 request for review of 60 companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2006, we initiated an administrative review of all 60 
companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 
(Aug. 30, 2006). On December 4, 2006, we published a correction to the 
initiation notice to reflect SANCO S.A.'s request for deferral of 
administrative review. See Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red 
Raspberries from Chile: Correction to Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 70363 (Dec. 4, 2006).
    On November 28, 2006, the petitioners withdrew their review request 
for 53 of the 60 companies for which they had originally requested an 
administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), on 
December 12, 2006, we partially rescinded this administrative review 
with respect to these 53 companies. See Individually Quick Frozen Red 
Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 74487 (Dec. 12, 2006). Thus, the six 
companies in this review are: Arlavan, Vitafoods, Olmue, Valle Frio, 
Valles Andinos, and VBM (collectively, the respondents).
    On November 29, 2006, the Department issued antidumping 
questionnaires to the respondents. The respondents submitted their 
initial responses to the antidumping questionnaire from December 2006 
through February 2007. After analyzing these responses, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires to the respondents to clarify or correct 
the initial questionnaire responses. We received timely responses to 
these questionnaires.
    On March 21, 2007, we requested that Valle Frio and Vitafoods 
respond to the constructed value (CV) portion of the Department's 
questionnaire. On April 12, 2007, and April 16, 2007, we requested that 
Arlavan and certain suppliers of Arlavan and Valles Andinos respond to 
the CV portion of the Department's questionnaire. We received timely 
responses to these requests for CV information from all but one 
supplier, Sociedad Comercial Antillal Ltda. (Antillal). For further 
discussion, see ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed 
Value'' section of this notice.
    On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than July 31, 2007, in accordance 
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Certain Individually Quick Frozen 
Red Raspberries From Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2005-
2006 Administration Review, 72 FR 10707 (Mar. 9, 2007).

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

    On February 12, 2007, we published the final results of the third 
administrative review, in which we revoked the antidumping duty order 
with respect to SANCO. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Final Determination to Revoke the Order In 
Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 6524, 
6525 (Feb. 12, 2007). Therefore, we are rescinding the deferred fourth 
administrative review with respect to SANCO.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are imports of IQF whole or 
broken red raspberries from Chile, with or without the addition of 
sugar or syrup, regardless of variety, grade, size or horticulture 
method (e.g., organic or not), the size of the container in which 
packed, or the method of packing. The scope of the order excludes fresh 
red raspberries and block frozen red raspberries (i.e., puree, straight 
pack, juice stock, and juice concentrate).
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable 
under subheading 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the order is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during June 2007, we 
verified the information provided by VBM and Olmue in Chile using 
standard

[[Page 44114]]

verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. The Department reported its findings on July 31, 
2007. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales and Raw 
Materials Purchases Responses of Vital Berry Marketing S.A. in the 
2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick 
Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile,'' dated July 31, 2007 (Verification 
Report - VBM); and Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales 
and Raw Materials Purchases Responses of Fruticola Olmu[eacute] S.A. in 
the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually 
Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile,'' dated July 31, 2007 
(Verification Report - Olmue). These reports are on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the main Department building.

Intent To Revoke In Part

    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or part'' an antidumping 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While 
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must 
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure 
for revocation based on an absence of dumping that is described in 19 
CFR 351.222(b)(2). In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty 
order in part, the Secretary will consider: (A) whether one or more 
exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the merchandise 
at not less than normal value (``NV'') for a period of at least three 
consecutive years; (B) whether, for any exporter or producer that the 
Secretary previously has determined to have sold the subject 
merchandise at less than NV, the exporter or producer agrees in writing 
to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that the 
exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject 
merchandise at less than NV; and (C) whether the continued application 
of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. 
See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
    The Department's regulations require, inter alia, that a company 
requesting revocation submit the following: (1) a certification that 
the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the 
current review period and that the company will not sell at less than 
NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject 
merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming 
the basis of the receipt of such a request; and (3) an agreement that 
the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be 
selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii).
    On July 31, 2006, Olmue and VBM submitted certifications that for a 
consecutive three-year period, including the current review period, 
they sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less 
than NV. Olmue and VBM also certified that they would not sell the 
subject merchandise at less than fair value in the future, and agreed 
to immediate reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if they are 
subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than 
fair value. Therefore, because we have determined that these 
respondents satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b), we 
preliminarily determine to revoke the antidumping order with respect to 
Olmue and VBM. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, ``Preliminary Determination to Revoke in Part the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries 
from Chile for Fruticola Olmu[eacute] S.A. and Vital Berry Marketing 
S.A.,'' dated July 31, 2007. This memorandum is on file in room B-099 
of the CRU.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of 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) of the Act, the Department 
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. In 
applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides 
that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a 
party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). 
Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, (1994) (SAA) 
at 870. Furthermore, affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1383 
(Fed. Cir. 2003); Antidumping Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 
27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
    In this case, we have found that facts otherwise available with an 
adverse inference is appropriate for Antillal, a supplier of Arlavan. 
Antillal is an interested party because it is a producer of the subject 
merchandise. See section 771(9)(A) and section 771(28) of the Act. 
Antillal did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Thus, 
Antillal withheld information necessary to the calculation of a dumping 
margin and failed to act to the best of its ability. See Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice 
of Intent to Revoke in Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries 
from Chile, 71 FR 45000, 45007 (Aug. 8, 2006) (unchanged in final); cf. 
Shandong Huarong Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 
1261, 1282 (CIT June 9, 2006) (``court agrees . . . that Company C, as 
a foreign manufacturer of subject merchandise, is an interested party 
under Sec.  1677(9)(A)''). Consequently, we preliminarily determine 
that an adverse inference is appropriate for Antillal.
    The Department did not receive constructed value information for 
Valles Andinos's organic raspberry products. Because this information 
is necessary to the calculation of Valles Andinos's constructed value, 
the Department must rely on facts otherwise available under section 776 
of the Act. The Department preliminarily finds that this information is 
unavailable because the suppliers we requested constructed value 
information from did not supply Valles Andinos with organic raspberry 
products during the POR. Thus, the unavailability of this information 
is not the result of Valles Andinos's lack of cooperation and adverse 
inferences under section 776(b) of the Act are inapplicable.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the 
United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP) 
to NV, as

[[Page 44115]]

described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by 
the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be 
foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) 
of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume 
of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. See the ``Normal Value'' section, below, for further 
details.
    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the 
ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 
similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. 
Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in 
the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we compared U.S. 
sales to CV. In making product comparisons, consistent with our 
determination in the original investigation, we matched foreign like 
products based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
respondent in the following order: grade, variety, form, cultivation 
method, and additives. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: IQF 
Red Raspberries from Chile, 66 FR 67510, 67511 (Dec. 31, 2001).
    Normally, the Department employs invoice date as the date of sale. 
See 19 CFR 351.401(i). However, if the Department determines that 
another date reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale, the Department may use this 
date. Id. The respondents, excluding Vitafoods and Valles Andinos, ship 
the subject merchandise on or before the date of invoice. We are using 
the date of shipment (i.e., guia de despacho/dispatch note date) as the 
date of sale for these respondents because this is the date on which 
the material terms of sale were established. See, e.g., Certain Cold-
Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 
13172-73 (March 18, 1998). Vitafoods sells its merchandise in the home 
market using only an invoice, not a guia de despacho. This invoice 
replaces, and is used for the same purpose as, the guia de despacho. 
Therefore, for Vitafoods, we are relying on invoice date as shipment 
date for home market sales. For U.S. sales, Vitafoods issues a guia de 
despacho, which we are relying upon for date of sale. See 19 CFR 
351.401(i). Valles Andinos reported contract date as the date of sale 
for its comparison market and U.S. sales because it stated that this is 
the date the final terms of sale are set. There is no evidence that the 
terms of sale change after the contract date. Therefore, for Valles 
Andinos, we are using contract date as the date of sale.

(A) Vitafoods

    We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because the 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We 
based EP on the free-on-board (FOB), cost and freight (CFR), or cost, 
insurance, and freight (CIF) price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States.
    In accordance with Vitafoods's response, we adjusted the reported 
gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, 
freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Chilean port, 
domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine 
insurance. See Memorandum to the File, ``Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum for Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A.,'' dated 
July 31, 2007 (Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum).
    For its U.S. market sales, Vitafoods reported the bill of lading 
date as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to match 
the issuance date of the guia de despacho, because that is when the 
merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the 
Chilean port. We also recalculated U.S. imputed credit expenses using 
the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, see Vitafoods 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    In accordance with Vitafoods's supplemental questionnaire response, 
we adjusted the product control number for certain whole and broken and 
crumble products to reflect their Grade D product classifications. For 
further discussion, see Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

(B) Arlavan

    We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed 
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on 
the packed, free on truck (FOT), FOB, or CFR price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions 
included, where appropriate, freight incurred in transporting 
merchandise to the warehouse and/or to the port, domestic warehousing, 
domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, and port 
charges.
    For its U.S. market sales, Arlavan reported the bill of lading date 
as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to match the 
issuance date of the guia de despacho, because that is when the 
merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the 
Chilean port. We also recalculated U.S. imputed credit expenses using 
the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, see Memorandum to 
the File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Arlavan 
S.A.,'' dated July 31, 2007 (Arlavan Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum), which is on file in the CRU.

(C) Olmue

    We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed 
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on 
the packed, CFR price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.
    In accordance with Olmue's response, we adjusted the reported gross 
unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where 
appropriate, inland freight to the warehouse in Chile, warehousing in 
Chile, inland freight to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and 
handling, and international freight.
    We made minor adjustments to the following fields in Olmue's U.S. 
sales listing: movement expenses, date of

[[Page 44116]]

shipment, indirect selling expenses, variable cost of manufacturing, 
and total cost of manufacturing; based on our findings at verification 
that the amounts for certain sales were misreported. Because of our 
findings with respect to the variable cost of manufacturing and total 
cost of manufacturing fields in Olmue's sales data, we also made minor 
adjustments to the variable overhead cost, fixed overhead cost, direct 
labor cost, and general and administrative (G&A) expense fields of 
Olmue's reported cost of production data. See Olmue Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum; see also Verification Report - Olmue.

(D) Valle Frio

    We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed 
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on 
the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where 
appropriate, inland freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the 
Chilean port and domestic brokerage and handling expenses.

(E) Valles Andinos

    We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed 
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on 
the packed, FOB or CFR price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included freight 
incurred in transporting merchandise from the plant to the Chilean port 
and domestic brokerage and handling.
    We calculated imputed credit expenses for all sales based on Valles 
Andinos's actual borrowing experience, the date the customer paid, the 
shipment date based on the guia de despacho, and the reported gross 
unit price. For further discussion, see Memorandum to the File, 
``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Valles Andinos, 
S.A.,'' dated July 31, 2007, (``Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU. We revised Valles Andinos's 
indirect selling expenses to exclude income taxes paid, in accordance 
with the Department's normal practice. See Valles Andinos Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.

(F) VBM

    We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed 
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on 
the duty delivered paid (DDP) prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States.
    We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions 
included, where appropriate, domestic inland freight, domestic 
brokerage and handling, certain pre-sale warehousing expenses, 
international freight, and U.S. customs duties. We adjusted the 
reported gross unit price, where applicable, for certain billing 
adjustments.
    We also made minor adjustments to the following fields in VBM's 
U.S. sales listing: movement expenses, inventory carrying cost, 
variable cost of manufacturing, and total cost of manufacturing; based 
on our findings at verification that the amounts for certain sales were 
misreported. See VBM Preliminary Calculation Memorandum; see also 
Verification Report - VBM.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. Quantities (or 
value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than 
five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States. See 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2).
    Arlavan, Olmue, Valle Frio, and Valles Andinos reported that their 
home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were less than 
five percent of their sales of IQF red raspberries to the United 
States. Therefore, these four respondents did not have viable home 
markets for purposes of calculating NV. As their largest third country 
markets, Arlavan and Valles Andinos reported Canada, and Olmue and 
Valle Frio reported France. In all instances, sales to the third 
countries exceed five percent of sales to the United States. We 
reviewed these largest third country markets that were reported by the 
respondents, and found that the merchandise sold in these markets was 
more comparable to that sold in the United States than merchandise sold 
by the respondents in smaller third country markets. Accordingly, for 
purposes of calculating NV, Arlavan and Valles Andinos reported their 
sales to Canada; Olmue and Valle Frio reported their sales to France.
    VBM and Vitafoods reported that their home market sales of IQF red 
raspberries during the POR were more than five percent of their sales 
of IQF red raspberries to the United States. Therefore, VBM's and 
Vitafoods's home markets were viable for purposes of calculating NV. 
Accordingly, VBM and Vitafoods reported their home market sales.
    To derive NV for all respondents, we made the adjustments detailed 
in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market 
Prices'' and ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' 
sections, below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the 
time of initiation (i.e., the second administrative review), the 
Department found that Olmue made sales in the comparison market at 
prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such 
sales from the calculation of NV. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
Olmue made IQF red raspberry sales in the comparison market (i.e., 
France) at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the period 
of review and has initiated a COP inquiry for this respondent. See 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses, financial expenses 
(INTEX), and comparison market packing costs, where appropriate.
2. Individual Adjustments for Olmue
    We relied on the COP data submitted by Olmue in its cost 
questionnaire responses except in specific instances where, based on 
our review of the

[[Page 44117]]

submissions, we believe that an adjustment is required, as discussed 
below.
    We adjusted the cost of the raw materials purchased by Olmue from 
an affiliated supplier to reflect the higher of transfer price, the 
affiliated supplier's COP, or market price in accordance with section 
773(f)(3) of the Act. See 19 CFR 351.407(b). We also disallowed the 
reported financial revenue offsets to Olmue's financial expenses 
because, despite repeated requests to Olmue for clarification, we were 
not able to distinguish the company's financial revenues related to 
short-term interest bearing assets from the financial revenues earned 
on long-term interest assets. For further discussion, see Memorandum to 
the File, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Fruticola Olmue S.A.,'' dated 
July 31, 2007, which is on file in the CRU.
    Also, as discussed in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on 
Comparison Market Prices'' and ``Export Price'' sections, we made minor 
adjustments to the variable overhead cost, fixed overhead cost, direct 
labor cost, and G&A expense fields in Olmue's COP listing based on our 
findings at verification that the amounts were misreported. See Olmue 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum; see also Verification Report - 
Olmue.
3. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for Olmue to its 
comparison market sales of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made 
at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a 
period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. See also sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 773(b)(1)(B) of the 
Act. On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the 
comparison market prices. The prices were exclusive of any applicable 
billing adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, 
commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
4. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less 
than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in 
substantial quantities.
    Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
during the POR are at prices less than the COP, we determine such sales 
to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we 
compare prices to the POR average COP, we also determine that such 
sales are not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregard these below-cost 
sales.
    For Olmue, we found that more than 20 percent of the comparison 
market sales of IQF red raspberries within an extended period of time 
were made at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices at which the 
merchandise under review was sold did not provide for the recovery of 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded 
these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For 
those U.S. sales of IQF red raspberries for which there were no useable 
comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared 
EPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See 
``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section, 
below.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We determined price-based NVs for each company as follows:
    For all respondents, we made adjustments for differences in packing 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the 
Act, and we deducted movement expenses consistent with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made 
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling 
expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions 
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the 
commission offset). Specifically, where commissions were granted in the 
U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward 
adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) the amount of the commission 
paid in the U.S. market; or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the 
comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward 
adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-specific 
adjustments are described below.

(A) Vitafoods

    We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price by 
deducting quantity discounts and movement expenses, including inland 
freight expenses from the plant to the distribution warehouse, 
warehousing, and inland freight expenses from distribution warehouse to 
the customer. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit expenses, direct 
selling expenses, commission expenses, and advertising expenses) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses). We 
recalculated imputed credit expenses because the amounts reported for 
certain sales did not conform with the credit expense calculation 
methodology described by Vitafoods at page B-21 of its January 19, 
2007, Sections B and C Questionnaire Response. See Vitafoods 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

(B) Arlavan

    We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price, 
where applicable, by deducting movement expenses, including inland 
freight to the warehouse, domestic warehousing, Chilean brokerage and 
customs fees, agriculture certificates, temperature control recorders 
during transit, port charges, and international freight. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for 
comparison market sales (e.g., external quality control/ biological 
testing, courier charges, and credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (e.g., external quality control/ microbiological 
testing, courier charges, and credit expenses).
    For its comparison market sales, Arlavan reported the bill of 
lading date as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to 
match the issuance date of the guia de despacho, because that is when 
the merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to 
the Chilean port. Consequently, we recalculated comparison market 
imputed credit

[[Page 44118]]

expenses using the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, 
see Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

(C) Olmue

    We based comparison market prices on the packed, CFR price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in France. In accordance with Olmue's response, 
we adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for 
billing adjustments. We adjusted the starting price by deducting 
movement expenses, including inland freight to the Chilean port, 
international freight, and brokerage and handling. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for 
comparison market sales (i.e., microbiological/pesticide testing, 
international storage expenses, bank expenses, commissions, credit 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., 
microbiological/pesticide testing, international storage expenses, bank 
expenses, commissions, credit expenses). See Olmue Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.
    We made minor adjustments to the following fields in Olmue's 
comparison market sales listing: date of shipment, date of sale, price 
adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, indirect 
selling expenses, variable cost of manufacturing, and total cost of 
manufacturing; based on our findings at verification that the amounts 
for certain sales were misreported. Because of our findings with 
respect to the variable cost of manufacturing and total cost of 
manufacturing fields in Olmue's sales data, we also made minor 
adjustments to the variable overhead cost, fixed overhead cost, direct 
labor cost, and G&A expense fields of Olmue's reported cost of 
production data. See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum; see also 
Verification Report - Olmue.

(D) Valle Frio

    We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in France or sold to an unaffiliated purchaser 
for exportation to France. We adjusted the starting price by deducting 
movement expenses, including, where appropriate, inland freight from 
the plant to the port, international freight, and container handling/
brokerage charges. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred for comparison market sales (e.g., credit expenses, 
commissions, microbiological/pesticide testing, label expenses) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (e.g., credit expenses, 
microbiological/pesticide testing, label expenses). See Memorandum to 
the File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Sociedad 
Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.,'' dated July 31, 2006 (Valle Frio 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum), which is on file in the CRU.

(E) Valles Andinos

    We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price by 
deducting movement expenses, including inland freight from the plant to 
the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling, and international 
freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for comparison market sales (e.g., credit expenses, bank fees, 
and courier fees) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (e.g., credit 
expenses, bank fees, and courier fees). See Valles Andinos Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.
    In accordance with the Department's normal practice, we revised 
Valles Andinos's indirect selling expenses reported to exclude income 
taxes paid. We calculated imputed credit expenses for all sales based 
on Valles Andinos's actual borrowing experience, the date the customer 
paid, the shipment date based on the guia de despacho, and the reported 
gross unit price. See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum.

(F) VBM

    We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in VBM's home market. We adjusted the starting 
price by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight to the 
warehouse and warehousing/storage expenses. We made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales 
(e.g., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (e.g., 
credit expenses, bank fees, postage and handling charges, and 
microbiological testing expenses). See VBM Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum.
    We also made minor adjustments to the following fields in VBM's 
home market sales listings: movement expenses, credit expenses, 
variable cost of manufacturing, and total cost of manufacturing; based 
on our findings at verification that the amounts for certain sales were 
misreported. See VBM Preliminary Calculation Memorandum; see also 
Verification Report - VBM.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for IQF 
red raspberries for which we could not determine the NV based on 
comparison market sales, either because there were no useable sales of 
a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the 
COP test, we based NV on the CV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For Olmue, we 
calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the 
methodology described in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, 
above.
    The Department determined that for certain merchandise sold in the 
United States, Valle Frio, Vitafoods, Arlavan, and Valles Andinos did 
not have comparison market sales. See Memorandum to the File, 
``Difference-in-merchandise Calculation for Sociedad Agroindustrial 
Valle Frio Ltda.'' dated March 21, 2007; Memorandum to the File, 
``Difference-in-merchandise Calculation for Alimentos Naturales 
Vitafoods S.A.'' dated March 21, 2007; and Memorandum from Yasmin Nair 
and Saliha Loucif, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to Susan 
Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, ``Requests for Constructed Value'' dated 
March 28, 2007.
    Valles Andinos is a trading company. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(e) of the Act, we sent questionnaires to Valles Andinos's 
suppliers. Specifically, we sent questionnaires to Valles Andinos's two 
largest suppliers.
    Arlavan produces and sells IQF red raspberries, and also acts as a 
trading company for other producers' IQF red raspberries. Because 
Arlavan's sales of its own product during the POR were not substantial, 
we also sent questionnaires to Arlavan's two largest suppliers. We 
received a complete questionnaire response from one supplier (Agricola 
San Antonio Limitada (San Antonio)); however, as explained below, we 
have not received complete, useable information from the other 
supplier, Antillal.
    The Department sent the questionnaire to Antillal on April 16, 
2007. On May 22, 2007, Antillal requested an extension of two weeks to 
respond to the questionnaire. The

[[Page 44119]]

Department granted this extension request in full. However, on June 6, 
2007, the new deadline for submission of Antillal's information, the 
Department was notified by Arlavan that Antillal was not providing a 
response.
    Because Antillal failed to provide the information required by the 
Department for these preliminary results, the Department has applied 
adverse facts available to calculate a CV for Antillal. See 
``Individual Company Adjustments'' and ``Use of Facts Otherwise 
Available'' sections, below.
1. Individual Company Adjustments
    With the exception of Antillal, as discussed above, we relied on 
the CV data submitted by the respondents except in specific instances 
where, based on our review of the submissions, we believe that an 
adjustment is required. These adjustments are discussed below.

Arlavan

    As discussed supra, one of Arlavan's suppliers, Antillal, failed to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire, and for this supplier, the 
Department has applied adverse facts available. See section 776 of the 
Act. We calculated a weighted-average CV for Arlavan using: 1) the CV 
of Arlavan's one responding supplier (San Antonio) for purchases from 
San Antonio; 2) Arlavan's own reported CV, as adjusted; and 3) the 
weighted average of the two highest COPs or CVs of all respondents' 
reported COP/CV information as AFA for Antillal's CV. These three CV 
values were weighted by quantities that were purchased or produced by 
Arlavan during the POR. For further discussion, see Arlavan Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.
    We revised Arlavan's reported per unit cost of manufacturing to 
take into consideration yield, dividing by output quantity rather than 
input quantity. We also adjusted Arlavan's reported G&A and INTEX 
expense calculations to exclude internal freight from the cost of goods 
sold denominator. For further discussion, see Arlavan Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum.
    Consistent with the Department's normal practice, we revised San 
Antonio's fixed overhead and INTEX ratio to include items that were 
improperly excluded by San Antonio. For further discussion, see Arlavan 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. We note that we continue to have 
outstanding cost reconciliation and valuation issues with San Antonio's 
and Arlavan's responses. For purposes of calculating these preliminary 
results, we are accepting the data provided by San Antonio and Arlavan. 
However, we intend to ask for further information following publication 
of these preliminary results to determine whether the aforementioned 
responses accurately reflect San Antonio's and Arlavan's constructed 
values.

Valles Andinos

    We calculated an average CV using the information provided by 
Valles Andinos's two suppliers, Pehuenche and Punsin. The average CV 
was weighted by quantities that were purchased by Valles Andinos from 
these two suppliers during the POR. For further discussion, see Valles 
Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    Although we received responses to our requests for supplemental 
information concerning constructed value reported by Valles Andinos 
suppliers, Pehuenche and Punsin, we have outstanding cost 
reconciliation and valuation issues with both responses. For purposes 
of calculating these preliminary results, we are accepting the data 
provided by Pehuenche and Punsin. However, we intend to ask for further 
information following publication of these preliminary results to 
determine whether these aforementioned responses accurately reflect 
these suppliers' constructed values.
    We revised Pehuenche's cost of manufacturing to include a raw 
material price adjustment. We also revised Pehuenche's G&A and INTEX 
expenses to include certain omitted expenses. See Valles Andinos 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    As mentioned previously, we did not receive constructed value 
information for Valles Andinos's organic raspberry products. See 
discussion supra. Therefore, we are using as neutral facts available 
the average difference between organic and non-organic raspberry 
products, all other product characteristics being equal, reported by 
other respondents to this administrative review, and we are applying 
this difference to the reported costs of Valles Andinos's non-organic 
raspberry products to derive constructed value for the organic 
products. See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

Vitafoods

    In accordance with the Department's normal practice, we have made 
adjustments to G&A expenses and INTEX expenses reported by Vitafoods. 
We revised Vitafoods's reported G&A expense ratio to include profit on 
sale of fixed assets, expenses associated with waste disposal, and 
fines paid. We revised Vitafoods's reported INTEX ratio to include net 
profit/loss in forward exchange operations. For further discussion, see 
Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
    We based SG&A expenses and profit for the above-mentioned 
respondents on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. 
We used U.S. packing costs as described in the ``Export Price'' 
section, above.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred 
on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses to, CV.

E. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP sale. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997).
    In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of 
distribution''),\3\ including selling functions,\4\ class of customer 
(customer

[[Page 44120]]

category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final 
user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have 
many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along 
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each 
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the 
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \4\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either comparison market or third country prices)\5\, we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable 
to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the 
comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare 
the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In 
comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where 
available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this review, we determined the following, with respect to the 
LOT, for each respondent.

(A) Vitafoods

    Vitafoods reported a single LOT in each market, and claimed that 
the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, Vitafoods did 
not request an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by Vitafoods regarding its 
marketing processes for its U.S. and home market sales, including 
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities 
performed. Vitafoods reported one channel of distribution for sales to 
the United States. In this channel of distribution, Vitafoods arranges 
to get the subject merchandise to the port for export. For these sales, 
Vitafoods's customer is the importer of record. Because Vitafoods has 
reported no significant variation in the selling activities for these 
sales, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT for Vitafoods's 
U.S. sales.
    Vitafoods has reported two channels of distribution for its home 
market sales. In the first channel of distribution (channel 1), 
merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold 
storage warehouse, and then delivered to the customer's facility. In 
the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is 
transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, 
and then transported to the distribution center where it is delivered 
to the customer. Because Vitafoods has not reported substantial 
differences in the selling activities for these two channels, we 
preliminarily find that there is a single LOT for Vitafoods's home 
market sales.
    Comparing sales in Vitafoods's two markets, there is no indication 
that there were significantly different selling activities or sales 
process activities. Vitafoods did make billing adjustments (i.e., 
discounts) on home market sales, however, these discounts are granted 
to each category of customers and do not significantly increase the 
level of selling activities performed by Vitafoods. Although Vitafoods 
performed some limited advertising for its home market sales, it did 
not provide technical services or post-sale warehousing for either U.S. 
or home market sales.
    Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both 
the U.S. and home markets, and that Vitafoods's U.S. and home market 
sales were made at the same LOT.

(B) Arlavan

    Arlavan reported a single LOT in each market, and claimed that the 
LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, Arlavan did not 
request an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by Arlavan regarding its 
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including 
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities 
performed. Arlavan has reported five channels of distribution for sales 
to the United States. In the first channel of distribution (channel 2), 
merchandise is shipped directly from the processing plant to the 
customer on a CFR (Chilean port) basis. In the second channel of 
distribution (channel 3), merchandise is shipped directly to the 
customer on an FOB (Chilean port) basis. In the third channel of 
distribution (channel 4), merchandise is shipped from the warehouse to 
the customer on an CFR (Chilean port) basis. In the fourth channel of 
distribution (channel 5), merchandise is picked up at the processing 
plant by a home market customer (FOT) and re-sold to the United States 
by that customer. In the fifth channel of distribution (channel 6), 
merchandise is picked up at the warehouse by a home market customer 
(FOT) and re-sold to the United States by that customer. For all sales 
to the United States, Arlavan's customer is the importer of record. For 
third-country sales, Arlavan sells in one channel of distribution 
(channel 4), where merchandise is shipped from the warehouse to the 
customer on a CFR (Chilean port) basis. For both markets, Arlavan sold 
to brokers.
    Comparing sales in Arlavan's two markets, there is no indication 
that there were significantly different selling activities or sales 
process activities. We examined the information reported by Arlavan 
regarding its marketing processes for its third country and U.S. sales, 
including customer categories and the type and level of selling 
activities performed. For sales to the third country and United States, 
Arlavan's selling activities were limited to receiving and processing 
orders, and, depending on the terms of sale, arranging for delivery to 
the third country. Arlavan offered no technical assistance, inventory 
maintenance services, or advertising in either market for IQF red 
raspberries, regardless of channel of distribution. Arlavan indicated 
that all export sales require that a microbiological analysis be 
conducted in order to ensure compliance with phytosanitary 
requirements. According to Arlavan, all selling activities were 
performed in Chile. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT 
exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that Arlavan's 
U.S. and third country sales were made at the same LOT.

(C) Olmue

    Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in 
the third country and U.S. markets. Olmue claimed that its sales in 
both markets were at the same LOT. Therefore, Olmue did not request a 
LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its sales 
processes for its third country and U.S. sales, including customer 
categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. 
Olmue reported that it sold to similar categories of customers in 
France and the United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar 
selling activities regardless of the customer category. Sales in both 
markets were direct shipments from the plant to the customer. 
Therefore, there were no differences in the channels of distribution 
between the two markets. Also, Olmue did not grant rebates or 
discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or 
advertise on sales to the U.S. or third country markets. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third 
country markets, and that Olmue's sales to the U.S. and third country 
markets were made at the same LOT.

(D) Valle Frio

    Valle Frio reported two channels of distribution in the third 
country market and a single channel of distribution in the United 
States. Valle Frio indicated that its sales to the United States and 
third country markets were made at the same LOT and it did not request 
a LOT adjustment.

[[Page 44121]]

    In the single channel of distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise 
is shipped directly to the customer on an FOB (Chilean port) basis. For 
third country sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), 
Valle Frio shipped the merchandise directly to the third country 
market. In the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise 
is sold to a Chilean customer who re-sold the product to the third 
country. For both markets, Valle Frio sold to wholesalers and 
distributers.
    Comparing sales in Valle Frio's two markets, there is no indication 
that there were significantly different selling activities or sales 
process activities. We examined the information reported by Valle Frio 
regarding its marketing processes for its third country and U.S. sales, 
including customer categories and the type and level of selling 
activities performed. For sales to the third country and United States, 
Valle Frio's selling activities were limited to receiving and 
processing orders, and, depending on the terms of sale, arranging for 
delivery to the third country. Valle Frio offered no technical 
assistance, inventory maintenance services, or advertising in either 
market for IQF red raspberries, regardless of channel of distribution. 
Valle Frio indicated that all export sales require that a 
microbiological analysis be conducted in order to ensure compliance 
with phytosanitary requirements. According to Valle Frio, all selling 
activities were performed in Chile. Therefore, we preliminarily find 
that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, 
and that Valle Frio's U.S. and third country sales were made at the 
same LOT.

(E) Valles Andinos

    Valles Andinos indicated that its sales to the United States and 
third country markets were made at the same LOT and it did not request 
a LOT adjustment. Valles Andinos reported one channel of distribution 
in the comparison market. In this channel, sales are made directly to 
the customer. All sales are shipped from Valles Andinos's supplier's 
cold storage facilities in Chile to the port, and are delivered by sea 
freight to the comparison market customer. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily determine that comparison market sales are made at a 
single LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Valles Andinos reported one channel of 
distribution. In this channel, sales are made directly to the customer. 
All sales are shipped from Valles Andinos's supplier's cold storage 
facilities in Chile to the port, and are delivered by sea freight to 
the U.S. customer. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the 
sales are made at a single LOT in the United States.
    Comparing sales in Valles Andinos's two markets, there is no 
indication that there were significantly different selling activities 
or sales process activities. Valles Andinos did not grant rebates or 
discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or 
advertise on either U.S. or third country sales. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and 
comparison markets, and that Valles Andinos's sales in the U.S. and 
comparison market were made at the same LOT.

(F) VBM

    VBM reported four distinct channels of distribution to the United 
States, and two channels of distribution in the home market. VBM 
claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same, and 
therefore, it did not request an LOT adjustment.
    We examined the information reported by VBM regarding its marketing 
processes for its home market and U.S. sales, including customer 
categories and the types and levels of selling activities performed. 
For U.S. sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), 
merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold 
storage warehouse before being transported to the port of shipment. For 
U.S. sales in the second channel of distribution (channel 2), 
merchandise is transported directly from the processing plant to the 
port for shipment. For U.S. sales in the third channel of distribution 
(channel 3), merchandise is transported directly to the customer. For 
U.S. sales in the fourth channel of distribution (channel 4), 
merchandise is transported to the port, and picked up by the customer.
    VBM reports that there are no pricing differences between these 
four channels of distribution. In all channels of distribution, VBM is 
responsible for arranging inland freight to the port in Chile. VBM is 
also the importer of record. VBM sells to the same types of customer in 
all four channels of distribution. Except for small differences 
regarding transportation of the product from the processing plant to 
the cold storage warehouse, and to the ultimate customer in the United 
States, there are no differences in the selling activities for these 
four channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find that 
there is a single LOT in the U.S. market.
    VBM has also reported two channels of distribution for its home 
market sales. For home market sales in the first channel of 
distribution (channel 1), merchandise is transported from the 
processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and is picked up 
directly from the warehouse by the customer. For home market sales in 
the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is picked 
up by the customer at the processing plant. Because VBM has not 
reported substantial differences in the selling activities for these 
two channels, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in VBM's 
home market.
    Comparing sales in VBM's two markets, there is no indication that 
there were significantly different selling activities or sales process 
activities. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists 
in both the U.S. and home markets, and that VBM's sales in the U.S. and 
home markets were made at the same LOT.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of 
the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. 
sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping 
margins:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A...................                3.19
Arlavan S.A.........................................   0.19 (de minimis)
Fruticola Olmue S.A.................................   0.05 (de minimis)
Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda./Agricola                   0.00
 Framparque.........................................
Valles Andinos S.A..................................                1.14
Vital Berry Marketing, S.A..........................   0.12 (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment and Disclosure

    Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of 
this review, we will disclose to interested parties any calculations 
performed in connection with the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit 
case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 5 days after the date for filing 
case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or

[[Page 44122]]

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each 
argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 
argument with an electronic version included; and (3) a table of 
statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by 
respondents for which they have reported the importer of record and the 
entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales. Where the respondents did not report the entered value for 
U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for 
the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount 
by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement 
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad 
valorem rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without 
regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate 
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    On July 20, 2007, the Department published a Federal Register 
notice that, inter alia, revoked this order, effective July 9, 2007. 
See IQF Red Raspberries from Chile: Final Results of Sunset Review and 
Revocation of Order, 72 FR 39793 (July 20, 2007). Therefore, there will 
be no need to issue new cash deposit instructions pursuant to the final 
results of this administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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 these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-15327 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S