[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44889-44893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4190]
[[Page 44889]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-337-806]
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: 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 of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red
raspberries from Chile. The period of review is July 1, 2003, through
June 30, 2004. This order covers sales of individually quick frozen red
raspberries with respect to Fruticola Olmue, S.A.; Santiago Comercio
Exterior Exportaciones Limitada; and Vital Berry Marketing, S.A.
We preliminarily find that, during the period of review, sales of
individually quick frozen red raspberries were not made below normal
value. 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 4, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole Kyle, Yasmin Bordas, or Scott
Holland, 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) 482-1503, (202) 482-3813, or (202) 482-1279, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 9, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published an antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen
(``IQF'') red raspberries from Chile. (See 67 FR 45460). On July 1,
2004, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' of this order. (See 69 FR 39903). On July 30,
2004, we received a timely filed request for review of 52 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 received similar requests for review from Fruticola
Olmue, S.A. (``Olmue''); Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones,
Ltda. (``SANCO''); Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. (``VBM''); Valles
Andinos, S.A. (``Valles Andinos''); and Alimentos y Frutos and
affiliate Vita Food, S.A. (``Alifrut'').\1\ On August 30, 2004, we
initiated an administrative review of the 52 companies. (See 69 FR
52857). The period of review (``POR'') is July 1, 2003, through June
30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These five companies were also included in the petitioners'
request for review of 52 companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 17, 2004, Alifrut withdrew its request for review. On
November 18, 2004, the Department determined that it was not
practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of
the 52 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we
selected the following four companies as respondents in this review:
Olmue, SANCO, VBM, and Valles Andinos. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach,
``Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Respondent
Selection,'' dated November 18, 2004, which is on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 in the main Department building.
On November 18, 2004, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to Olmue, SANCO, VBM, and Valles Andinos. As a result of
certain below cost sales being disregarded in the previous applicable
segment of the proceeding, we instructed Olmue to respond to the cost
questionnaire. (For further details, see the ``Cost of Production''
section, below.) On November 29, 2004, the petitioners withdrew their
request for review for all companies for which they had requested an
administrative review. On December 1, 2004, the petitioners submitted a
revision to correct a typographical error made in the November 29,
2004, submission. On December 7, 2004, Valles Andinos withdrew its
request for review. On December 17, 2004, we rescinded the
administrative review with respect to the requested companies, except
Olmue, SANCO, and VBM (collectively, ``the respondents''), in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). (See 69 FR 75511.)
We received questionnaire responses from the respondents in
December 2004 and January 2005. We issued supplemental questionnaires
to the respondents in January and March 2005. We issued additional
supplemental questionnaires to Olmue in June 2005 and July 2005. We
received timely filed responses.
On February 14, 2005, 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 29, 2005,
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 70 FR 7472.)
We conducted verification of VBM's sales from April 18 through
April 22, 2005. (For further details, see the ``Verification'' section,
below.)
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are imports of individually
quick frozen (``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 April 2005, we
verified the information provided by VBM in Chile using standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing
relevant information. The Department reported its findings on June 29,
2005. See Memorandum to the File, ``Verification Report - VBM'' dated
June 29, 2005. This report is on file in the Department's CRU.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the
United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export
price (``EP'') to normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2), we compared individual EPs to weighted-
average NVs, which were calculated in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act.
Product Comparisons
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
[[Page 44890]]
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 the respondents' volume of
home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of their
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, see the
``Normal Value'' section, below.)
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 constructed value (``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
(December 31, 2001)).
Export Price
For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold prior
to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We
based EP on the packed, Free on Board (``FOB'') plus Duty Paid,
Delivered Duty Paid (``DDP''), or Cost and Freight (``C&F'') price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported
gross unit price, where applicable, for rebates and billing
adjustments. We also made deductions for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions
included, where appropriate, domestic inland freight, brokerage and
handling, pre-sale warehousing expenses, international freight, U.S.
customs duties, and other U.S. transportation expenses. To calculate
EP, we relied upon the data submitted by the respondents.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
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 its volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Olmue and SANCO 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 in the United States. Therefore, Olmue and SANCO
did not have viable home markets for purposes of calculating NV. Olmue
reported that France was its largest third country market, and SANCO
reported that the United Kingdom was its largest third country market.
In both instances, sales to the third countries exceed five percent of
sales to the United States. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating
NV, Olmue reported its sales to France, and SANCO reported its sales to
the United Kingdom.
VBM reported that its home market sales of IQF red raspberries
during the POR were more than five percent of its sales of IQF red
raspberries in the United States. Therefore, VBM's home market was
viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, VBM reported its
home market sales for purposes of calculating NV.
B. Sales to Affiliated Customers
VBM made sales in the home market to affiliated customers. To test
whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting
prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of unaffiliated
customers, net of all movement charges, selling expenses, discounts,
and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average,
within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or
comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that
the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison
Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the
Department's practice, sales to affiliated parties were only included
in our margin analysis if the sales were made at arm's length.
C. Cost of Production
As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Olmue made sales of the
subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost
of production (``COP'') within the meaning of section 773(b) of the
Act. Therefore, for Olmue, we used the calculated COP to test for below
cost sales.
In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we did not
conduct a sales below cost inquiry for the other respondents because
the Department did not have reason to believe or suspect that either
respondent made below cost sales. Moreover, the Department did not
receive an allegation that either respondent made below cost sales.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
cost of production (``COP'') based on the sum of the cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general
and administrative (``G&A'') expenses, financial expenses, and
comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. See infra ``Test of
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' for a discussion of the treatment of
comparison market selling expenses. We relied on the respondent's
information as submitted, except for adjustments to Olmue's fixed and
variable overhead expenses due to calculation errors by the respondent.
See Memorandum to Neal Harper, Director, Office of Accounting, ``Cost
of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results-Fruticola Olmue S.A.'' dated July 28, 2005.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
For Olmue, on a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted
weighted-average COP to the comparison market sales of the foreign like
product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in
order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP.
The prices were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments,
movement expenses, direct selling expenses, commissions, indirect
selling expenses, and packing expenses. In determining whether to
disregard comparison market sales made at prices below the COP, we
examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act,
whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product
[[Page 44891]]
during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard
any below cost sales of that product, because we determine that, in
such instances, the below cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that the
below cost sales represent ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at
prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
We found that, for Olmue, for certain specific products, more than
20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the
COP, and the below cost sales were made within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at
prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
For U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no
comparable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade
(e.g., sales that passed the cost test), we compared those sales to CV,
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
D. Calculation of 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, when
sales of comparison products could not be found, either because there
were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable
products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.
In accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication
for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A
expenses, financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We made
the same adjustments to the CV costs as described in the ``Calculation
of COP'' section of this notice. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling expenses, GSec. A expenses,
and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country.
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. 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 (November 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''),\2\ including selling
functions,\3\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
\3\ 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\4\), 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 an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olmue
Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in
each market and claimed that its sales in both markets were at the same
LOT. Therefore, Olmue did not request an LOT adjustment.
We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities
performed. Olmue reported that it sold to end-users in the third
country and to traders, distributors, retailers and end users in the
United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar selling
activities regardless of the customer category. Thus, we preliminarily
find that Olmue sold at a single LOT in the comparison and U.S.
markets.
Moreover, sales in both markets were direct shipments to customers
from the plant. Therefore, there were no differences in the channels of
distribution between the two markets. Olmue also did not grant rebates
or discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or
incur advertising expenses in either the third country or U.S. market.
Therefore, we preliminarily find that Olmue's sales in the comparison
and U.S. markets were made at the same LOT.
SANCO
SANCO reported a single LOT in the comparison and U.S. markets, and
claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore,
SANCO did not request an LOT adjustment.
We examined the information reported by SANCO regarding its
marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including
customer categories and the type and level of selling activities
performed. SANCO reported two channels of distribution in the U.S.
market. In the U.S. market, channel one, the customer pays for the
international freight. In the U.S. market, channel two, SANCO pays for
the international freight. In both channels of distribution, SANCO is
always responsible for the inland freight expenses to the port in
Chile. Also, SANCO is always the importer of record and, therefore,
pays all applicable customs duties. SANCO sells to the same customer
types in both channels of distribution. Except for the differences
regarding the payment of international freight, there are no
differences in the selling activities for these two channels of
distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is a single
LOT in the U.S. market.
SANCO has reported one channel of distribution for sales to its
third country market. In this channel, SANCO's customer is the importer
of record, and is responsible for all customs duties.
[[Page 44892]]
SANCO is responsible for the inland freight expenses to the port in
Chile. The international freight is also paid by SANCO. Because SANCO
has reported no variation in the selling activities for these sales, we
preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in SANCO's third country
market.
Comparing sales in SANCO's two markets, there is no indication that
there were significantly different selling activities or sales process
activities. SANCO also did not grant rebates or discounts, provide
technical services or post-sale warehousing, or incur advertising
expenses on either U.S. or third country sales.
Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both
the U.S. and third country markets, and that SANCO's sales in the U.S.
and third country markets were made at the same LOT.
VBM
VBM reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market, and
three channels of distribution in the home market. However, because the
selling functions do not differ significantly between these channels,
VBM is not claiming 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.
VBM reported two channels of distribution in the U.S. market. In the
U.S. market, channel one, VBM's product is transported from the
processing plant to the cold storage warehouse before being transported
to the port of shipment. In the U.S. market, channel two, VBM's sales
are transported directly from the processing plant to the port for
shipment. VBM reports that there are no pricing differences between
these two channels of distribution. In both channels of distribution,
VBM is always responsible for the inland freight to the port in Chile.
VBM is also always the importer of record and, therefore, pays all
applicable customs duties. VBM sells to the same types of customer in
both channels of distribution. Except for small differences regarding
transportation of the product from the processing plant to the cold
storage warehouse, there are no differences in the selling activities
for these two channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily
find that there is a single LOT in the U.S. market.
VBM has reported three channels of distribution for its home market
sales. In the home market, channel one, VBM's product is transported
from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and is picked
up directly from the warehouse by the customer. In the home market,
channel two, VBM's product is transported from the warehouse to the
cold storage warehouse, and is then delivered by VBM to the customer.
In the home market, channel three, VBM's product is picked up by the
customer at the processing plant. Because VBM has not reported
substantial differences in the selling activities for these three
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. Although VBM did grant rebates for a few U.S. sales, it did
not provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or incur
advertising expenses on 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 VBM's sales in the U.S. and home
markets were made at the same LOT.
F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on FOB and C&F prices to unaffiliated
customers in the comparison markets. We made adjustments for billing
adjustments, where appropriate and, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses.
These included domestic inland freight, pre-sale warehousing expenses,
international freight, marine insurance, third country brokerage and
handling, third country duties, and third country inland freight, where
applicable. In addition, we made adjustments under section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in
circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses, and other direct
selling expenses, where appropriate. For Olmue, we also made
adjustments, where appropriate, for indirect selling expenses incurred
in the comparison market or the United States where commissions were
granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission
offset), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e).
Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the
merchandise (the ``DIFMER'' adjustment), where applicable, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. To
calculate NV, we relied upon the data submitted by the respondents.
G.Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We made adjustments to CV
for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In addition, we added
U.S. packing costs.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruticola Olmue, S.A................................ 0.09 (de minimis)
Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda...... 0.00
Vital Berry, S.A.................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each
respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative
review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the
final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculate importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated
for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or customer).
Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater
than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable entered
values, we apply the assessment rate to
[[Page 44893]]
the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the
review period. Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate
is greater than de minimis and we do not have entered values, we
calculate a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties
due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of
this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of IQF red raspberries from Chile entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the
final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.50
percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a
previous review or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers and/or exporters of
this merchandise, shall be 6.33 percent, the ``all others'' rate
established in Notice of Amended final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile, 67 FR 40270 (June 12,
2002).
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Public Comment
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 37
days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day
thereafter. 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 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary
results.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 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 28, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4190 Filed 8-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S