[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77851-77852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31751]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-813]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple
Fruit From Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 8, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand. This
review covers nine producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The
period of review (POR) is July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999. Based on
our analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the
preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the ``Final
Results of Review'' section. Furthermore, we are not revoking the
antidumping duty order with respect to Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd.
(Malee) given that shipments of this company's subject merchandise to
the United States have not been made in commercial quantities for each
of the three consecutive review periods that formed the basis of the
revocation request.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or Charles Riggle,
Office 5, Group II, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-0631 and (202) 482-0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to Department regulations are to the
regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).
Background
This review covers the following producers/exporters of merchandise
subject to the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from
Thailand: Vita Food Factory (1989) Co., Ltd. (Vita); Siam Fruit Canning
(1988) Co., Ltd. (SIFCO); Siam Food Products Public Co. Ltd. (SFP); The
Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. (TIPCO); Malee; The Prachuab Fruit
Canning Company Ltd. (PRAFT); Thai Pineapple Canning Industry (TPC);
Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd. (TROFCO); and Kuiburi Fruit Canning
Co. Ltd. (KFC),
On August 8, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results
of this review. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination Not to Revoke Order
in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand, 65 FR 48450 (Preliminary
Results). On September 7 and 14, 2000, we received case briefs and/or
rebuttal briefs, respectively, from the petitioners,\1\ SFP, TIPCO,
Malee, TPC, and SIFCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners in this case are Maui Pineapple Company and
the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Review
The product covered by this review is canned pineapple fruit (CPF).
CPF is defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various
product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed
pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either
pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable
under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers
CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed
without added sugar (i.e., juice-packed). Although these HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, our
written description of the scope is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum''
(Decision Memorandum) from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, dated December 6, 2000, which is hereby
adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to
this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding
[[Page 77852]]
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be
accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Determination Not To Revoke Order
For the reasons outlined in the Decision Memorandum, we have
determined not to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to
subject merchandise produced and also exported by Malee, because its
sales were not made in commercial quantities in accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1)(ii).
Fair Value Comparisons
We calculated export price (EP) and normal value (NV) based on the
same methodology used in the preliminary results. We corrected clerical
errors with respect to Malee and TPC.
Cost of Production
We calculated the COP based on the same methodology used in the
preliminary results, with the exception of PRAFT. For PRAFT we used the
five-year historical net realizable value ratio for calculating the
fruit cost used in the COP. For a further discussion of this issue, see
the Decision Memorandum, Comment 4. We corrected clerical errors with
respect to SFP.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period July 1, 1998,
through June 30, 1999:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Food Products Company Ltd.............................. 0.37
The Thai Pineapple Public Company, Ltd...................... 1.95
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co. Ltd............................... 1.63
Thai Pineapple Canning Industry............................. 3.42
Siam Fruit Canning (1988) Co. Ltd........................... 1.31
Vita Food Factory (1989) Co. Ltd............................ 5.19
The Prachuab Fruit Canning Company Ltd...................... 2.16
Tropical Food Industries Co., Ltd........................... 4.02
Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd............................... 1.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject
merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where
the import-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on that
importer's entries of subject merchandise.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)
of the Act: (1) For the companies named above, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate listed above, except where the margins are zero or de
minimis no cash deposit will be required, (2) for merchandise exported
by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in
a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous
segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise
in these final results of review or in the most recent segment of the
proceeding in which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or
in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will
be 24.64 percent, the all others rate established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 in the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with
19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 6, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues Covered in Decision Memorandum
I. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO MALEE
Comment 1: Revocation
Comment 2: Imputed Credit Expenses
Comment 3: Export Price (EP) vs. Constructed Export Price (CEP)
II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO PRAFT
Comment 4: Fruit Cost Allocation
Comment 5: Direct vs. Indirect Selling Expenses
III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO SIFCO
Comment 6: Correction of Errors in Database
Comment 7: Calculation of General and Administrative (G&A)
Expense Ratio
Comment 8: Calculation of Interest Expense Ratio
IV. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TIPCO
Comment 9: Expenses Related to Compliance with the Antidumping
Duty Order
Comment 10: Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses
Comment 11: Calculation of Interest Expense Ratio
Comment 12: Offset to G&A
Comment 13: Purchase of Input from Affiliated Party
Comment 14: Offset to Cost of Manufacturing (COM)
Comment 15: Clerical Error Allegation
V. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO TPC
Comment 16: Date of Sale
Comment 17: EP vs. CEP
Comment 18: Allocation of G&A to Arbitrage Activity
Comment 19: Allocation of Interest Expense to Arbitrage Activity
Comment 20: Clerical Error Allegation
VI. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO SFP
Comment 21: Clerical Error Allegation
[FR Doc. 00-31751 Filed 12-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P