[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-10989] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: May 6, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [A-614-801] Fresh Kiwifruit From New Zealand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration/International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In response to a request by the respondent, the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board, the Department of Commerce has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand. The review covers one exporter and the period November 27, 1991, through May 31, 1993. The review indicates the existence of margins for the exporter. As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the United States price and foreign market value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amer M. Kayani or Thomas F. Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5346 or 482-3814, respectively. Background On June 2, 1992, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the antidumping duty order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand (57 FR 23203). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' on June 7, 1993 (58 FR 31941). The respondent, the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board (NZKMB), requested that we conduct an administrative review for the period November 27, 1991, through May 31, 1993. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on July 21, 1993 (58 FR 39007), announcing an administrative review of the NZKMB. The Department has now conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). Scope of the Review The product covered by this review is fresh kiwifruit. Processed kiwifruit, including fruit jams, jellies, pastes, purees, mineral waters, or juices made from or containing kiwifruit, are not covered under the scope of this review. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading 0810.90.20.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive. United States Price Exporter's Sales Price: As provided in section 772(c) of the Tariff Act, we used the exporter's sales price (ESP) as U.S. price for certain sales by the NZKMB to the United States; these sales were made to the first unrelated party in the United States after importation, and hence warranted ESP methodology. We calculated ESP based on packed F.O.B. (ex-New Zealand coolstore), and packed F.O.B., freight-prepaid prices. We made deductions, where appropriate, for New Zealand inland freight (coolstore to port), loading charges in New Zealand, ocean freight, basic marine insurance, charter insurance, U.S. import duties, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight (decreased to account for prepaid freight where applicable), and price discounts (i.e., advertising allowances, special advertising allowances, market adjustment discounts, advertising rebates which actually constituted discounts, and discounts for quality problems). In accordance with sections 772(e) (1) and (2) of the Tariff Act, we made additional deductions, where appropriate, for agent commissions, broker commissions, credit, direct advertising, and indirect selling expenses. Indirect selling expenses included inventory carrying costs, repacking, U.S. primary and U.S. satellite coolstore charges, New Zealand and U.S. instore insurance, fire insurance, product liability and tamper insurance, earthquake insurance, indirect advertising, quality control expenses, miscellaneous selling-agent-related charges, U.S.-incurred indirect expenses, and New Zealand incurred indirect selling expenses associated with selling in the United States. We increased the U.S. price to account for post sale price adjustments not reflected in the gross price. Purchase Price: As provided in section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used purchase price to represent the U.S. price for sales made on a CIF basis directly by the NZKMB. Deductions were made, where appropriate, for ocean freight, foreign inland freight, and inland/marine insurance in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act. Foreign Market Value The Department determined that home market sales did not constitute a viable basis for calculating foreign market value (FMV). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.48 and 353.49(b), the Department chose sales to Japan as the basis of FMV. Japan is the largest third-country market based on information submitted by the NZKMB. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent raised in this review any other factor relevant to third country selection, hence we did not consider any other factor in determining the third-country market. In general, the Department relies on monthly weighted-average prices in the calculation of FMV. In consideration of the significant volume of third-country sales involved in this review, we decided to test respondents' third-country sales to determine whether we could use annual FMVs as a basis of comparison to U.S. sales. To determine whether a period of review (POR) weighted-average price was representative of the transactions under consideration, we performed a three-step test. See Antifriction Bearings from Japan, et al.; Final Results of Review, 58 FR 42289 (1993). We first compared the monthly weighted-average third-country price for each model with the weighted-average POR price of that model. We calculated the proportion of each model's sales whose POR weighted- average price did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent from the monthly weighted-average prices. We did this test for each model of kiwifruit. We then compared the volume of sales of all models of kiwifruit whose POR weighted-average price did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent from the monthly weighted-average price with the total volume of sales of kiwifruit. If the POR weighted-average price of at least 90 percent of sales of kiwifruit did not vary more than plus or minus 10 percent from the monthly weighted-average price, we considered the POR weighted-average price to be representative of the transactions under consideration. Finally, we tested whether there was any correlation between fluctuations in price and time for each model. We found that no significant correlation existed between price and time (See analysis memorandum to the file, 4/25/94). That is, prices did not consistently rise or fall so as to make annual weighted-average prices unrepresentative of home market prices. Because many of the NZKMB's sales were determined to be at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the investigation, the Department initiated a COP investigation for the purposes of this administrative review. Just as the Department found in the investigation, we find that in comparing third-country sales to COP, the reseller/exporter's acquisition prices are irrelevant because section 773(b) of the Tariff Act requires that the Department look at the actual COP of the subject merchandise. Thus, we used the cost incurred by kiwifruit farmers, the actual producers of the subject merchandise, to calculate the COP benchmark. Due to the large number of growers from which the NZKMB purchased kiwifruit during the POR, the Department determined that sampling was both administratively necessary and methodologically appropriate to calculate a representative cost of producing the subject merchandise for purposes of this administrative review (See section 777A of the Tariff Act). Based on comments submitted by the petitioner and the respondent, we decided to select kiwifruit growers on a stratified basis across the categories of regional location. Farms were stratified by geographic regions into either the Bay of Plenty region or non-Bay of Plenty regions. This division was made because 70 percent of the New Zealand kiwifruit is produced in the Bay of Plenty region and it is considered to be the most cost-effective area in which to grow kiwifruit. Once farms were categorized into two geographic regions, a random sample of 20 growers was selected. Since 70 percent of the New Zealand kiwifruit production originates in the Bay of Plenty region, we selected 14 growers representing this region. An additional six growers were selected from the non-Bay of Plenty regions. We sent COP questionnaires through the NZKMB to the 20 kiwifruit growers, all of which responded to the Department's questionnaire. These 20 responses, along with supplemental responses and verification results, were analyzed and relied upon, where appropriate, in reaching the preliminary results of the review. We calculated the cost of cultivation for each grower by summing all costs for the 1992 kiwifruit season. These costs included the cost of materials, farm labor, farm overhead, and packing. We allocated the cost on a per tray-equivalent basis over the total number of tray- equivalents submitted by each grower to the NZKMB. We then adjusted those costs to reflect the fruit loss of 22 percent, which was disclosed by the NZKMB in its financial statement. We added the NZKMB's general and administrative expenses to the farm's average cost per tray. The orchard set-up costs for all growers were amortized over 20 years (See memorandum to Holly A. Kuga, 4/21/94). Because several growers failed to provide actual orchard set-up costs, we must base our determination on the ``best information available'' (BIA), pursuant to 19 CFR 353.37(a). For those growers that did not or could not provide actual set-up costs, we used grower number 17's average cost per hectare, collected at verification, as BIA to calculate set-up costs. These are the highest orchard set-up costs of the 20 growers in our sample. For growers that allocated costs over the productive area, that is, canopy area, we made adjustments to include the headlands and sidelands in the productive area of the kiwifruit orchard for the purpose of allocating costs. We made adjustments to growers' cost for depreciation, interest, labor, repairs, management, vehicles, fertilizer, spraying, rates (property tax), electricity, shelter, water, general and administrative, pruning, and mowing on a farm-specific basis where appropriate. For the grower that failed verification, we used BIA to determine its COP, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.37(a). This BIA was based on the highest COP we calculated for all responding growers. We calculated a simple average COP from the sampled growers' individual COPs. The total COP was calculated on a New Zealand dollar per single-layer tray equivalent basis (NZ$/SLT). Pursuant to Department practice, in conducting our COP analysis, if over 90 percent of a respondent's sales of a particular model were at prices above the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the respondent's below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities, as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 57 FR 21065 (1992). If between 10 and 90 percent of a respondent's sales of a particular model were at prices above the COP, we retained the sales above cost for analysis, and we examined the sales below cost to determine whether they occurred over an extended period of time. Consistent with the Departments' practice, the Department disregarded those sales made below cost if occurring in more than two months. Where we found that more than 90 percent of respondent's sales of a model were at prices below the COP and over an extended period of time, we disregarded all home market sales of that model and based FMV on constructed value (CV) in accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. There is no information on the record demonstrating that prices of below cost sales would recover all costs within a reasonable period of time. To calculate CV, the statutory minimum profit of eight percent was added because the NZKMB's actual profit was less than the statutory minimum (See section 773(e) of the Tariff Act). We added selling, general and administrative expenses for the NZKMB to the farm's average cost per tray because the actual expenses were higher than the statutory minimum of 10 percent. We adjusted third-country prices, where appropriate, to reflect deductions for rebates, New Zealand inland freight, New Zealand inland freight insurance, New Zealand port loading expenses, ocean freight and charter insurance. Direct advertising, imputed credit, and letter of credit charges were also deducted. We also deducted indirect selling expenses including inventory carrying costs, New Zealand instore and fire insurance, product liability and tamper insurance, indirect advertising, and other indirect selling expenses when calculating FMV for comparison to ESP transactions. This deduction for third country indirect selling expenses was capped by the amount represented by U.S. indirect selling expenses plus U.S. commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b). Preliminary Results of Review We have preliminarily determined that the following margin exists for the period November 27, 1991, through May 31, 1993: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Margin Manufacturer/exporter (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board........................ 35.86 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the date of publication of this notice, and a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication. Any hearing requested will be held as early as convenient for parties but not later than 44 days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs, or other written comments, from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. The Department will publish the final results of review, including its results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments. The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly to the U.S. Customs Service. 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 the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm will be that firm's rate established in the final results of this administrative review; and (2) the cash deposit rate for merchandise exported by all other manufacturers and exporters who are not covered by this or any previous administrative review conducted by the Department will be the ``all others'' rate of 98.60 percent established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22. Dated: April 29, 1994. Paul L. Joffe, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 94-10989 Filed 5-5-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P