Antidumping: Fresh cut flowers from Colombia,
FR, February 02, 1998 › Notices › International Trade Administration
Linked as:Text
Federal Register: February 2, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 21)NoticesPage 5354-5360From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DOCID:fr02fe98-50
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-301-602Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results and Partial Termination 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 requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia for the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below the normal value by various companies subject to this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price or constructed export price and the normal value (NV). For certain companies who have requested that we rescind their requests for review, we have granted that request.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The deadlines for submission of argument are listed at the end of this notice. All memoranda referred to in this notice can be found in the public reading room, located in the Central
[Page 5355]Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa Jeong or Marian Wells, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482- 1278 or 482-6309, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997).
Background
On March 7, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' with respect to the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia. See 62 FR 10521. In accordance with
Scope of Review
The scope of the order under review is shipments of certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia (standard carnations, miniature (spray) carnations, standard chrysanthemums and pompon chrysanthemums). These products are currently classifiable under item numbers 0603.10.30.00, 0603.10.70.10, 0603.10.70.20, and 0603.10.70.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
Respondent Selection
Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides the Department with the authority to determine margins by limiting its examination to a statistically valid sample of exporters or exporters accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. This subparagraph is formulated as an exception to the general requirement of the Act that each company for which a review is requested will be individually examined and receive a calculated margin. In this administrative review, 424 companies were either named in the initiation notice or have been identified as being affiliated with a company named in the initiation notice.
Because of the large number of companies involved in the review and the limited resources available to the Department, we determined that it was administratively necessary to restrict the number of respondents selected for examination. This enabled us to conduct thorough and accurate analyses of the responses to our questionnaires and other relevant issues within the statutory deadlines. Restricting the number of respondents for examination is consistent with the most recent administrative review of this order and other past cases involving large numbers of potential respondents, statutory deadlines and limited resources. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16772 (April 8, 1997) (Flowers Ninth Review); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1344 (January 19, 1996); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10, 1996).
The Department limited its examination in the present review to ten groups of exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of flowers, in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. These exporters accounted for over 30 percent by volume of the total exports made during the POR to the United States from Colombia. Therefore, respondents are the following ten parties: the Agrodex Group (Agrodex); Caicedo Group (Caicedo); Claveles Colombianos Group (Clavecol); Cultivos Miramonte Group (Cultivos Miramonte); Floraterra Group (Floraterra); Florex Group (Florex); Guacatay Group (Guacatay); Queens Flowers Group (Queens); Tinzuque Group (Tinzuque); and Tuchany Group (Tuchany).
Non-Selected Respondents
Consistent with our practice in Flowers Ninth Review, we have assigned the non-selected respondents a weighted-average margin based on the calculated margins of selected respondents, excluding any de minimis margins and margins based on facts available. The firms in question are listed under ``Non-Selected Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section below.
Terminations
On July 9, 1997, Flexport de Colombia & Cia S.A. (Flexport), Flores Silvestres S.A. (Silvestres), Vegaflor, and Agropecuaria Sierra Loma S.A. (Sierra Loma) withdrew their requests for review. Silvestres, Sierra Loma, and Vegaflor were included in the Department's initiation notice, but Flexport was inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice. In accordance with
With respect to Silvestres, a request for review was received for this company from the petitioner, the Floral Trade Council (FTC), on March 3, 1997. Because of the FTC's request, we are not terminating our review for this company.
Verification
All ten selected respondents were verified during the two immediately preceding reviews. With the exception of one respondent, Caicedo, the verifications of all selected respondents during the two preceding reviews were successful. Therefore, Caicedo was the only respondent verified in the present review. We verified information provided by Caicedo using standard verification procedures, including on-site examination of relevant sales and financial records, and inspection of original documentation containing relevant information.
[Page 5356]Use of Facts Available
Tuchany
In Flowers Ninth Review and during the POR of the present review, the Tuchany group consisted of five growers. The group has since dissolved with three of the companies now out of business and the remaining two growers sold to different, unaffiliated owners. While Tuchany was able to report sales data for all subject merchandise sold by the group during the POR, it was not able to report the cost data for the three growers no longer in existence. The questionnaire response, therefore, contained only the costs of the two operational farms.
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act requires, inter alia, that if necessary information is not available on the record, the Department shall use facts available (FA). Pursuant to the Act, if the Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the Department may use an adverse inference in selecting from among FA.
Based on the circumstances described by Tuchany, we find it reasonable that the company would have difficulty compiling a complete response. Tuchany indicated that it acted to the best of its ability to locate the missing data and provided a detailed explanation of its efforts. Tuchany explained that cost data, unlike sales records, were maintained individually by each company and Tuchany's exhaustive efforts at locating the former employees and accounting records of the three defunct companies were futile. Accordingly, we believe the use of adverse FA is not warranted in this case. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we have used the cost data of the two operational farms as FA for the margin calculations of the entire Tuchany group, including the three companies dissolved shortly after the POR. Where cost data for a flower type was unavailable because that flower type was not grown by one of the growers for which cost information was reported, we have applied to those sales, as FA, the margin calculated for the flower type for which cost data was available. See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, re: Constructed Value Data for Tuchany Group Companies, dated January 26, 1998.
Fair Value Comparisons
United States Price
Consistent with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act and Flowers Ninth Review, we determined that it was appropriate to average U.S. prices on a monthly basis in order (1) to use actual price information that is often available only on a monthly basis, (2) to account for large sales volumes, and (3) to account for perishable-product pricing practices.
For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, as appropriate. CEP was used for consignment sales through unaffiliated U.S. consignees and sales (consignment or otherwise) made through affiliated importers.
We calculated EP based on the packed price, consisting of invoice price (either f.o.b. Bogota, c.i.f. Miami or c.i.f. Chicago) plus certain additional charges, e.g., box charges and antidumping duties paid, to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates, foreign inland freight, international (air) freight, brokerage and handling, U.S. customs fees, and return credits.
For sales made on consignment, CEP was calculated based on the packed price consisting of invoice price plus certain additional charges by the consignee, e.g., box charges and antidumping duty deposits paid, to the unaffiliated purchaser. For sales made through affiliated parties, CEP was based on the packed price, consisting of invoice price plus certain additional charges, e.g., box charges and antidumping duty deposits paid, to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made adjustments to these prices, where appropriate, for box charges, discounts and rebates, foreign inland freight, international (air) freight, freight charges incurred in the United States, brokerage and handling, U.S. customs fees, direct selling expenses (credit expense and contributions to the Colombian Flower Council) relating to commercial activity in the United States, return credits, royalties and indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market that related to commercial activity in the United States. Finally, consistent with our practice in Flowers Ninth Review, we made adjustments for either commissions paid to unrelated U.S. consignees or the indirect U.S. selling expenses of related consignees.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, the price was further reduced by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP for sales made through affiliated parties. The CEP profit rate was calculated using the expenses incurred by the responding companies on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and of the like product in the home market (for those companies that had home market sales) and the profit associated with those sales.
Normal Value
Section 773 of the Act provides that the normal value (NV) of the subject merchandise shall be (1) the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home market (HM) sales), in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or constructed export price, (2) the price at which the foreign like product is so sold (or offered for sale) for consumption in a country other than the exporting country or the United States (third country (TC) sales) or (3) the constructed value of that merchandise.
Some companies selected to respond in this review have sales in the home market of export quality flowers exceeding 5 percent of the sales to the U.S. market, i.e., have a viable home market. However, most companies report no selling expenses on these sales and report them as being incidental to their real purpose of business, the production and exportation of flowers. They also state that export quality sales in the home market are not planned on and generally are the result of excess production. Consistent with our practice in previous reviews of this order and based on information provided by respondents, we have determined that these sales are not within the ordinary course of trade.
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act states that if the administering authority determines that the NV of the subject merchandise cannot be determined using home market prices, then, notwithstanding the possible use of third country prices, the NV of the subject merchandise may be the constructed value (CV) of that merchandise. We received comments and factual information concerning this issue from petitioners on October 10, 1997 and January 9, 1998, and from respondents on December 15, 1997.
During this POR, certain companies selected to respond had viable third country markets in Europe, Japan, and Canada. In prior reviews, we have rejected using prices to Europe because the particular market situation prevents a proper comparison. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final
[Page 5357]Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287 at 53296 (October 14, 1997). Information submitted by respondents shows that this market situation has continued. Therefore, we are not basing NV on sales to European markets.
With respect to Japan and Canada, because these are not significant export markets for Colombia, we have determined that, under the facts of this case, prices to Canada or Japan are not representative within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act. As discussed above in the section on ``Respondent Selection,'' we have limited our analysis to a subset of the Colombian companies exporting to the United States and we are basing the antidumping duty assessments for the non- selected companies on the margins calculated for the selected companies. Given this, we want to make our analysis as representative as possible of the companies that were not selected to respond to our questionnaire.
It is clear that neither Japan nor Canada is an important export market for Colombian flower growers. Evidence on the record indicates that Canada represents less than three percent of flower exports from Colombia and Japan represents less than one percent of flower exports from Colombia. Thus, to use sales to Japan or Canada as the basis of our margin calculations for the few exporters that have viable markets in Japan and Canada and then include those results in calculating the rate used for assessing duties on the non-selected respondents would be inappropriate for the vast majority of growers. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we are basing NV on CV. As an alternative method for ensuring that NV was representative, we considered using third country sales for those companies with a viable third country market, but excluding those companies from the calculation of the assessment rate for non-selected exporters. However, that methodology would substantially reduce the percentage of exports during the POR that would form the basis of the assessment calculation for non-selected exporters. Therefore, we determine that the use of CV is a more reasonable means of establishing a representative NV for purposes of calculating the assessment rates for all exporters under review.
We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, and the selling, general and administrative expenses reported by respondents. Consistent with the methodology used in the Final Results of Flowers Ninth Review to calculate a per-unit CV, see 62 FR 53287 (October 14, 1997), we first converted each month's CVs from pesos to dollars using the corresponding month's exchange rate. We totaled the monthly CV expressed in dollars over the POR and divided by the quantity of export quality flowers sold by the grower/exporter to arrive at the per-stem CV in U.S. dollars. The dollar per-stem CV was then converted to pesos using the period-end exchange rate and then deflated these peso- denominated amounts to the value of Colombian peso in each month of the POR. Next, we converted the peso per-stem CV to dollars based on the date of the U.S. sale, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act.
We consider non-export quality flowers (culls) that are produced in conjunction with export quality flowers to be by-products. Therefore, revenue from the sales of culls was offset against the cost of producing the export quality flowers.
We based selling, general and administrative expenses on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product for consumption in the home market. Where respondents had no home market sales, we used the general and administrative expenses associated with their sales to all other markets. Regarding selling expenses, with the exception of Floraterra, all respondents reporting sales of export quality flowers in the home market stated they had no selling expenses in that market. Therefore, we did not include selling expenses for those respondents. For Floraterra, we included the actual selling expenses incurred.
With respect to profit, we preliminarily determine that the conditions that led to the use of FA for the profit rate in Flowers Ninth Review continue to exist in the current POR. We find that home market sales of culls and/or export quality flowers were outside the ordinary course of trade because the record indicates that they were made at below cost prices. Consequently, we are unable to apply the methods specified in section 773(e)(2)(A) or 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for calculating profit. Also, none of the respondents realized a profit on merchandise in the same general category as flowers produced for sale in Colombia. Therefore, we are also not able to apply the profit methodology described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) permits the Department to use ``any other reasonable method'' to compute an amount for profit, provided that the amount ``may not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or producers . . . in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise.'' Despite our efforts, we have not been able to find any information on the profits earned in Colombia by producers of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as flowers. Therefore, we cannot determine a ``profit cap'' as described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii). Consistent with our practice in Flowers Ninth Review, we have applied section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) on the basis of facts available and have developed a profit figure from the financial statements of a Colombian producer of agricultural and processed agricultural goods. See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) at 841. We preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to use the profit rate for that company, 4.47 percent of cost of production, for all respondents.
We added U.S. packing to constructed value. In addition, for EP sales, we made circumstance of sale adjustments for direct expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Finally, we adjusted for commissions paid in the U.S. market by deducting any indirect selling expenses included in CV up to the amount of the U.S. commissions.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996). Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61971 (November 19, 1997). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.
[Page 5358]Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of EP and CEP with NV, we preliminarily determine that there are margins in the amounts listed below for the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
Selected Respondents
The following 10 groups of firms (composed of 86 companies) were selected as respondents and received individual rates, as indicated below:
Percent
Agrodex Group..............................................
0.88 Agricola de las Mercedes S.A.
Agricola el Retiro Ltda.
Agrodex Ltda.
Degaflores Ltda.
Flores Camino Real Ltda.
Flores Cuatro Esquinas Ltda.
Flores de la Comuna Ltda.
Flores de Los Amigos Ltda.
Flores de los Arrayanes Ltda.
Flores de Mayo Ltda.
Flores del Gallinero Ltda.
Flores del Potrero Ltda.
Flores dos Hectareas Ltda.
Flores de Pueblo Viejo Ltda.
Flores el Trentino Ltda.
Flores la Conejera Ltda.
Flores Manare Ltda.
Florlinda Ltda.
Horticola el Triunfo Ltda.
Horticola Montecarlo Ltda.
Caicedo Group..............................................
3.71 Agrobosque S.A.
Andalucia S.A.
Aranjuez S.A.
Consorcio Agroindustrial Colombiano S.A. ``CAICO''
Exportaciones Bochica S.A.
Floral Ltda.
Flores del Cauca S.A.
Productos el Rosal S.A.
Productos el Zorro S.A.
Claveles Colombianos Group.................................
0.90 Claveles Colombianos Ltda.
Elegant Flowers Ltda.
Fantasia Flowers Ltda.
Splendid Flowers Ltda.
Sun Flowers Ltda.
Cultivos Miramonte Group...................................
0.61 C.I. Colombiana de Bouquets S.A.
Cultivos Miramonte S.A.
Flores Mocari S.A.
Floraterra Group...........................................
6.10 Floraterra S.A.
Flores Casablanca S.A.
Flores Novaterra Ltda.
Flores San Mateo S.A.
Siete Flores S.A.
Florex Group...............................................
1.17 Agricola Guacari S.A.
Agricola el Castillo
Flores San Joaquin
Flores Altamira S.A.
Flores de Exportacion S.A.
Flores Primavera S.A.
Guacatay Group.............................................
2.49 Agricola Cunday S.A.
Agricola Guacatay S.A.
Agricola Ventura
Jardines Bacata Ltda.
Multiflora Comercializadora Internacional S.A.
Queens Flowers Group.......................................
0.11 Agroindustrial del Rio Frio
Cultivos General Ltda.
Flora Nova
Flora Atlas Ltda.
Flores Calima S.A.
Flores Canelon Ltda.
Flores de Bojaca
Flores del Cacique
Flores del Hato
Flores el Aljibe Ltda.
Flores el Cipres
Flores El Pino Ltda.
Flores el Tandil
Flores la Mana
Flores las Acacias Ltda.
Flores la Valvanera Ltda.
Flores Jayvana
Flores Ubate Ltda.
Jardines de Chia Ltda.
Jardines Fredonia Ltda.
M.G. Consultores Ltda.
Mountain Roses
Queens Flowers de Colombia Ltda.
Quality Flowers S.A.
Florval S.A. (Floval)
Jardines del Rosal.........................................
Tinzuque Group.............................................
1.23 Tinzuque Ltda.
Catu S.A.
Tuchany Group..............................................
9.21 Tuchany S.A.
Flores Sibate
Flores Tikaya
Flores Munya
Flores Xue S.A.
Non-Selected Respondents
The following 338 companies were not selected as respondents and will receive a rate of 2.55 percent, calculated as discussed above in the section on ``Non-Selected Respondents'': Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia Achalay Aga Group
Agricola la Celestina
Agricola la Maria
Agricola Benilda Ltda. Agrex de Oriente Agricola Acevedo Ltda. Agricola Altiplano Agricola Arenales Ltda. Agricola Bonanza Ltda. Agricola Circasia Ltda. Agricola de Occident Agricola del Monte Agricola el Cactus S.A. Agricola el Redil Agricola Guali S.A. Agricola la Corsaria Ltda. Agricola la Siberia Agricola Las Cuadras Group
Agricola las Cuadras Ltda.
Flores de Hacaritama Agricola Megaflor Ltda. Agricola Yuldama Agrocaribu Ltda. Agro de Narino Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group
Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.
Celia Flowers
Passion Flowers
Primo Flowers
Temptation Flowers Agroindustrial Madonna S.A. Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda. Agromonte Ltda. Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda. Agropecuaria la Marcela Agropecuaria Mauricio Agrorosas Agrotabio Kent Aguacarga Alcala Alstroflores Ltda. Amoret Ancas Ltda. Andalucia Andes Group
Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.
Flores de los Andes Ltda.
Flores Horizonte Ltda.
Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda. A.Q. Arboles Azules Ltda. Aspen Gardens Ltda. Astro Ltda. Becerra Castellanos y Cia. Bojaca Group
Agricola Bojaca
Universal Flowers
Flores y Plantas Tropicales
Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.
Tropiflora Cantarrana Group
Cantarrana Ltda.
Agricola los Venados Ltda. Carcol Ltda. Cienfuegos Group
Cienfuegos Ltda.
Flores la Conchita Cigarral Group
Flores Cigarral
Flores Tayrona Classic Claveles de los Alpes Ltda. Clavelez Coexflor Colibri Flowers Ltda. Color Explosion Combiflor Consorcio Agroindustrial Cota Crest D'or Crop S.A. Cultiflores Ltda. Cultivos Guameru Cultivos Medellin Ltda. Cultivos Tahami Ltda. Cypress Valley Daflor Ltda.
[Page 5359]Degaflor De La Pava Guevara E. Hijos Ltda. Del Monte Del Tropico Ltda. Dianticola Colombiana Ltda. Disagro Diveragricola Dynasty Roses Ltda. El Antelio S.A. Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen Tantau) El Milaro El Tambo El Timbul Ltda. Envy Farms Group
Envy Farms
Flores Marandua Ltda. Euroflora Exoticas Exotic Flowers Exotico Expoflora Ltda. Exportadora Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A. (formerly Flores de Cajibio Ltda.) Farm Fresh Flowers Group
Agricola de la Fontana
Flores de Hunza
Flores Tibati
Inversiones Cubivan Ferson Trading Flamingo Flowers Flor Colombiana S.A. Flora Bellisima Flora Intercontinental Floralex Ltda..
Floralex Ltda.
Flores el Puente Ltda.
Agricola Los Gaques Ltda. Florandia Herrera Camacho & Cia. Floreales Group
Floreales Ltda.
Kimbaya Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda. Flores Abaco S.A. Flores Acuarela S.A. Flores Agromonte Flores Aguila Flores Colon Ltda. Flores de la Sabana S.A. Flores de Serrezuela S.A. Flores de Suesca S.A. Flores del Rio Group
Agricola Cardenal S.A.
Flores del Rio S.A.
Indigo S.A. Flores El Molino S.A. Flores El Zorro Ltda. Flores la Cabanuela Flores la Fragrancia Flores la Gioconda Flores la Lucerna Flores la Macarena Flores la Pampa Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group
Santana Flores las Caicas Flores las Mesitas Flores los Sauces Flores Monserrate Ltda. Flores Montecarlo Flores Monteverde Flores Palimana Flores Ramo Ltda. Flores S.A. Flores Sagaro Flores Saint Valentine Flores Sairam Ltda. Flores San Andres Flores San Carlos Flores San Juan S.A. Flores Santa Fe Ltda. Flores Santana Flores Sausalito Flores Selectas Flores Silvestres Flores Sindamanoi Flores Suasuque Flores Tenerife Ltda. Flores Tiba S.A. Flores Tocarinda Flores Tomine Ltda. Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group
Flores Tropicales Ltda.
Happy Candy Ltda.
Mercedes Ltda.
Rosas Colombianos Ltda. Flores Urimaco Flores Violette Florexpo Floricola Floricola la Gaitana S.A. Florimex Colombia Ltda. Florisol Florpacifico Flor y Color Flowers of the World/Rosa Four Seasons Fracolsa Fresh Flowers F. Salazar Funza Group
Flores Alborada
Flores de Funza S.A.
Flores del Bosque Ltda. Garden and Flowers Ltda.
German Ocampo
Granja Green Flowers Grupo el Jardin
Agricola el Jardin Ltda.
La Marotte S.A.
Orquideas Acatayma Ltda. Gypso Flowers Hacienda la Embarrada Hacienda Matute Hana/Hisa Group
Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.
Flores Tokai Hisa Hernando Monroy Horticultra Montecarlo Horticultura de la Sasan Horticultura El Molino Hosa Group
Horticultura de la Sabana S.A.
HOSA Ltda.
Innovacion Andina S.A.
Minispray S.A.
Prohosa Ltda. Illusion Flowers Industria Santa Clara Industrial Agricola Industrial Terwengel Ltda. Ingro Ltda. Inverpalmas Inversiones Almer Ltda. Inversiones Bucarelia Inversiones Cota Inversiones el Bambu Ltda. Inversiones Flores del Alto Inversiones Maya, Ltda. Inversiones Morcote Inversiones Morrosquillo Inversiones Playa Inversiones & Producciones Tecnica Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda. Inversiones Silma Inversiones Sima Inversiones Supala S.A. Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda. Iturrama S.A. Jardin de Carolina Jardines Choconta Jardines Darpu Jardines Natalia Ltda. Jardines Tocarema Jardines de America Jardines de Timana J.M. Torres Karla Flowers Kingdom S.A. La Colina La Embairada La Flores Ltda. La Floresta La Plazoleta Ltda. Las Amalias Group
Las Amalias S.A.
Pompones Ltda.
La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.
Ramiflora Ltda. Las Flores Laura Flowers L.H. Linda Colombiana Ltda. Loma Linda Loreana Flowers Los Geranios Ltda. Luisa Flowers Luisiana Farms M. Alejandra Manjui Ltda. Mauricio Uribe Maxima Farms Group
Agricola los Arboles S.A.
Colombian D.C. Flowers
Polo Flowers
Rainbow Flowers
Maxima Farms Inc. Merastec Monteverde Ltda. Morcoto Nasino Natuflora Ltda../San Martin Bloque B Olga Rincon Oro Verde Group
[Page 5360]
Inversiones Miraflores S.A.
Inversiones Oro Verde S.A. Otono (Agroindustrial Otono) Papagayo Group
Agricola Papagayo Ltda.
Inversiones Calypso S.A. Petalos de Colombia Ltda. Pinar Guameru Piracania Pisochago Ltda. Plantaciones Delta Ltda. Plantas S.A. Prismaflor Propagar Plantas S.A. Reme Salamanca Rosa Bella Rosaflor Rosales de Colombia Ltda. Rosales de Suba Ltda. Rosas Sabanilla Group
Flores la Colmena Ltda.
Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.
Inversiones la Serena
Agricola la Capilla Rosas y Jardines Rose Rosex Ltda. Roselandia San Ernesto San Valentine Sansa Flowers Santa Rosa Group
Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.
Floricola La Ramada Ltda. Santana Flowers Group
Santana Flowers Ltda.
Hacienda Curibital Ltda.
Inversiones Istra Ltda. Sarena Select Pro Senda Brava Ltda. Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda. Shila Siempreviva Soagro Group
Agricola el Mortino Ltda.
Flores Aguaclara Ltda.
Flores del Monte Ltda.
Flores la Estancia
Jaramillo y Daza Solor Flores Ltda. Starlight Superflora Ltda. Susca Sweet Farms
Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.
Floricola la Ramada Ltda. Tag Ltda. The Beall Company The Rose Tomino Toto Flowers Group
Flores de Suesca S.A.
Toto Flowers Tropical Garden Uniflor Ltda. Velez de Monchaux Group
Velez De Monchaux e Hijos y Cia S. en C.
Agroteusa Victoria Flowers Villa Cultivos Ltda. Villa Diana Vuelven Ltda. Zipa Flowers
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing not later than ten days after publication of this notice. Interested parties may also submit written arguments in case briefs on these preliminary results within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filedno later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with
The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including a discussion of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. The Department will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated an importer- specific per-stem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the quantity of subject merchandise entered during the POR. We have used the number of stems entered during the POR, rather than entered values, because respondents reported average monthly prices and, moreover, the entered values were not associated with particular importers. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the 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 Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those rates established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, 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, a prior review, or the original Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV) 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) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 3.10 percent, the adjusted ``all others'' rate from 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 also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and
Dated: January 26, 1998. Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
FR Doc. 98-2482Filed1-30-98; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Sponsored links
