Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses From Colombia

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-301-801]

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh

Cut Roses From Colombia

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 20, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Maeder or James Terpstra, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3330, or (202) 482-3965.

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that fresh cut roses (roses) from

Colombia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of

1930 (the Act), as amended. The estimated margins are shown in the

``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

Since the notice of initiation on March 7, 1994 (59 FR 11771, March

14, 1994), the following events have occurred.

On March 31, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)

issued an affirmative preliminary determination.

On April 19, 1994, the Department decided to collect constructed

value (CV) information from all respondents in addition to home market

or, where appropriate, third country sales information (See the April

19, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford).

On May 5, 1994, the Department issued sales and cost questionnaires

to the following 16 Colombian companies: Agricola Benilda; Agrorosas

S.A.; Flores La Fragancia S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A.; Grupo Andes; Grupo

Bojaca; Caicedo Group; Grupo Clavecol; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo

Intercontinental; Grupo Papagayo; Grupo Prisma; Grupo Sabana; Grupo

Sagaro; Grupo Tropicales; and Rosex LTDA. These companies accounted for

approximately 40 percent of the exports of the subject merchandise

during the period of investigation (POI). Although the Department

``normally will examine not less than 60 percent of the dollar value or

volume of the merchandise sold'' during the POI, 19 CFR 353.42(b)(1),

due to limited administrative resources the Department chose to examine

less than 60 percent (See the May 2, 1994, memorandum from the team to

Barbara R. Stafford).

On June 24, 1994, the Floral Trade Council, petitioner in this

investigation, requested a postponement of the preliminary

determination until September 12, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.15(c)

(1993). As we found no compelling reason to deny the request, the

Department granted this request on June 28, 1994 (59 FR 34409, July 5,

1994).

On June 24, 1994, the Department relieved all respondents except

Caicedo Group from the requirement of reporting sales of roses imported

and/or sold as part of bouquets (See the June 24, 1994, memorandum from

the team to Barbara R. Stafford). On this same date, the Department

also instructed respondents to report monthly-average price data for

the U.S. market, home market, and where appropriate, third country

markets (See the June 24, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R.

Stafford).

Also on June 24, 1994, the Department determined that eight of the

respondents (Agricola Benilda; Flores La Fragancia S.A.; Grupo Bojaca;

Caicedo Group; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo Intercontinental; Grupo

Papagayo; and Grupo Prisma) had viable home markets and were instructed

to report home market sales data as the basis for foreign market value

(FMV).

In addition, the Department determined that four of the respondents

(Grupo Clavecol; Grupo Sabana; Grupo Sagaro and Grupo Tropicales) did

not have viable home markets and instructed the respondents to report

third country sales data as a potential basis for FMV (See the June 24,

1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford). However, since

respondents argued that third country markets were fundamentally

different from the U.S. market, it was decided that the final basis for

FMV for these last four respondents (either third country sales or CV)

would not be determined until more information was received (See the

``Third Country Sales Versus Constructed Value'' section of this notice

for further discussion).

The Department also instructed four of the respondents (Agrorosas

S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A.; Grupo Andes; and Rosex LTDA) to report CV as

the basis for FMV as the volume of sales in neither the home market nor

third countries was adequate.

On June 29, 1994, one of the four respondents in the second

category above, Grupo Sagaro, submitted an amendment to its

questionnaire response. In that amendment, Grupo Sagaro stated that,

based on further review, it did have a viable home market. After

reviewing the new sales information, the Department agreed and on July

8, 1994, we instructed Grupo Sagaro to base its FMV on home market

sales.

Respondents submitted responses to the Department's sales and cost

questionnaires in May and July 1994. The Department issued deficiency

sales and cost questionnaires in June, July, August and September 1994.

Respondents submitted their responses to these deficiency sales and

cost questionnaires in June and August 1994. Agricola Benilda submitted

a comprehensive revision of its sales and cost information on September

8, 1994. Agrorosas S.A. submitted minor pre-verification corrections on

September 9, 1994.

On July 5, 1994, petitioner requested that the Department reject

home market sales as a basis for FMV for nine of the respondents for

which the home market was viable. Petitioner stated that these sales

were not in the ordinary course of trade. On July 11, 1994, the

Department issued supplemental questionnaires to determine if the sales

reported were in the ordinary course of trade. On July 25, 1994, the

respondents provided their responses to these supplemental

questionnaires.

On July 28, 1994, petitioner alleged that the nine respondents

which had viable home markets sold roses in the home market at prices

below their cost of production (COP). Petitioner also alleged that

Grupo Tropicales sold roses in one of its two third country markets,

Argentina, at prices below its COP.

On August 22, 1994, the Department instructed Rosex to file a

consolidated response with Rosas Sausalito and Induflora. This response

is due on September 12, 1994. For our preliminary determination we

based our analysis on only Rosex's data.

On September 8, 1994, the Department initiated COP investigations

against the nine respondents with viable home markets and against

Argentine sales for Grupo Tropicales (See the September 8, 1994,

memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).

Based on information obtained from the respondents which had viable

home markets, the Department determined on September 9, 1994, that home

market sales were in the ordinary course of trade and, therefore, could

be used in the Department's analysis (See the September 9, 1994,

memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford).

On September 12, 1994, the Department decided to base FMV for Grupo

Clavecol, Grupo Sabana and Grupo Tropicales on third country sales (See

the September 12, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R.

Stafford). For a further discussion, see the ``Third Country Sales''

section of this notice.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this investigation are fresh cut roses,

including sweethearts or miniatures, intermediates, and hybrid teas,

whether imported as individual blooms (stems) or in bouquets or

bunches. Roses are classifiable under subheadings 0603.10.6010 and

0603.10.6090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description of the scope of this investigation is

dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The Department initiated this investigation using our standard six-

month POI from September 1, 1993, to February 28, 1994. On March 30 and

April 11, respondents submitted comments on the POI. On April 5, 1994,

petitioner also submitted comments on the POI. On April 14, 1994, the

Department altered the POI to calendar year 1993 because of the

seasonal nature of sales and production in the rose industry (See the

April 14, 1994, memorandum from the team to Richard W. Moreland).

In addition, for purposes of price-to-price comparisons, we are

basing FMV on two six-month periods: January 1, 1993, through June 30,

1993; and July 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993. For a further

discussion of these periods, see the September 12, 1994, concurrence

memorandum.

Best Information Available

We have determined, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act,

that the use of best information available (BIA) is appropriate for

sales of the subject merchandise by the following respondents: (1)

Agricola Benilda; (2) Grupo Intercontinental; (3) Grupo Prisma and (4)

Grupo Andes.

In assigning BIA, the Department applies a two-tiered methodology

based on the degree of respondent's cooperation. In the first tier, the

Department normally assigns higher margins (i.e., margins based on more

adverse assumptions) for those respondents which did not cooperate in

an investigation or which otherwise impeded the proceeding. If a

respondent is deemed non-cooperative, the Department bases the

preliminary margin for the relevant class or kind of merchandise on the

higher of: (1) The highest margin in the petition or (2) the highest

calculated margin of any respondent within that country that supplied

adequate responses for the relevant class or kind of merchandise.

In the second tier, the Department assigns lower margins to those

respondents who substantially cooperate in an investigation. These

margins are based on the higher of: (1) The highest calculated margin

for any respondent within the country that supplied adequate

information for the relevant class or kind of merchandise or (2) the

average margin of the margins in the petition (See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings

(Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal

Republic of Germany, (54 FR 18992, May 3, 1989)).

The Department's two-tiered methodology for assigning BIA has been

upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (See

Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir.

1993); See also Krupp Stahl AG v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT

1993)).

For Agricola Benilda, Grupo Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma, we

have determined that these respondents' original and deficiency

questionnaire responses were unusable for the preliminary determination

because they contained significant deficiencies (See the September 12,

1994, memorandum from David L. Binder to Barbara R. Stafford). In

addition, Agricola Benilda submitted substantial revisions to its sales

and cost information on September 8, 1994.

However, because Agricola Benilda, Grupo Andes, Grupo

Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma responded to our requests for

information, we find that these respondents have been substantially

cooperative for purposes of this preliminary determination.

Accordingly, we used as second-tier BIA for these respondents the

average of the margins contained in the petition, which is 55.94

percent. This margin is higher than the highest margin calculated for

any respondent in this investigation.

Furthermore, we have issued supplemental deficiency letters to

Agricola Benilda, Grupo Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma. If these

respondents submit adequate and timely responses to these letters, we

will conduct verification for these respondents and will consider their

information for purposes of the final determination.

For Grupo Andes, we have determined that this respondent has failed

to respond adequately to the Department's deficiency questionnaire and

failed to inform the Department in a timely manner that it had

sufficient sales of export-quality roses in the home market to deem the

home market viable. While Grupo Andes stated that its home market was

not viable, analysis of its deficiency response has indicated that its

home market is, in fact, viable.

Grupo Andes' failure to correctly indicate that its home market

was, in fact, viable constitutes a material error: the determination of

what basis in which to make price comparisons is central to the entire

dumping analysis.

While Andes has substantially cooperated in this investigation, the

history of its responses indicates that the information reported was

highly unreliable, and its failure to report home market sales was a

fundamental error. Because of the serious errors in Andes' reporting,

we would have needed a materially new response. We find that there is

insufficient time prior to verification in which to analyze such a

response and any possible supplemental responses. For these reasons we

will not be conducting verification for this respondent and will also

base the margin for Grupo Andes in the final determination on

cooperative BIA (See the September 9, 1994, memorandum from David L.

Binder to Barbara R. Stafford).

Such or Similar Comparisons

We have determined that all roses covered by this investigation

comprise two categories of ``such or similar'' merchandise: culls and

export-quality roses. None of the respondents reported sales of culls

in the United States. Therefore, no comparisons in this such or similar

category were made. Regarding export quality roses, where possible, we

made comparisons of identical merchandise. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home market or third country market to

compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise comparisons on the

basis of: (1) Form (e.g., as part of a bouquet, an individual stem,

etc.); (2) type (e.g., hybrid tea, sweetheart, etc.); (3) color; (4)

stem length; and (5) variety. We did not make any adjustments for

differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise because

respondents reported no cost differences between the products.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of roses from Colombia to the United

States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States

price (USP) to the FMV for all non-BIA respondents, as specified in the

``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this

notice.

United States Price

For sales by all non-BIA respondents except Floramerica, we based

USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act,

when the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation and when exporter's sales price

(ESP) methodology was not otherwise indicated.

In addition, for all non-BIA respondents, where sales to the first

unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United

States, we based USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the

Act.

For all U.S. prices, we used weighted-average monthly U.S. prices

(See the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).

During the POI, some of the respondents paid commissions to related

parties in the United States. We determined that these commissions were

directly related to the sales under consideration. We also tested these

commissions for these respondents to determine whether they were paid

at arm's length using the criteria set forth in the Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Belgium

(56 FR 56359, November 4, 1991). Where we found that they were paid at

arm's length, we deducted them from USP. However, we found that

respondents used these commissions as a mechanism for reimbursing their

related parties for their actual expenses. Accordingly, in order to

avoid double-counting, where the actual expenses of the related party

were less than the commissions, we deducted only the commissions. Where

the commissions were less than the actual expenses, we also deducted

the amount by which the actual expenses exceeded the commissions (See

the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).

Finally, for those respondents who had related parties in the

United States and did not report inventory carrying costs on their ESP

sales, we calculated these costs for these respondents using an

inventory carrying period of seven days. This is the maximum amount of

time which may transpire between the time a rose is cut and when it

must be sold to the ultimate customer, according to a public report by

Harry K. Tayama, PhD., submitted by respondents in this investigation.

For companies with sales to unrelated parties, we accepted that

inventory carrying costs were included in U.S. credit expenses.

We made company-specific adjustments, as discussed below:

1. Agrorosas S.A.

For Agrorosas, U.S. purchase price was based on packed, f.o.b.

prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, air freight, U.S. and Colombian indirect selling

expenses, brokerage and handling charges, commissions, U.S. import

duties, direct selling expenses, and credit expenses.

2. Flores La Fragancia S.A.

For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we calculated purchase price based on

packed, f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland

freight and air freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for

discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, credit expenses and

U.S. and Colombian indirect selling expenses including inventory

carrying costs.

3. Flores Mocari S.A.

For Flores Mocari S.A., we calculated purchase price based on

packed, f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air

freight and U.S. import duties.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, credit expenses and

other direct selling expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted

the greater of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.

4. Grupo Bojaca

For Grupo Bojaca, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, brokerage and handling

and credit expenses.

5. Caicedo Group

For Caicedo Group, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight,

air freight, U.S. import duties, and U.S. inland freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for

discounts, Columbian Flower Council (CFC) fee, foreign inland freight,

air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight, repacking

expenses, and credit expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted

the greater of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.

6. Grupo Clavecol

For Grupo Clavecol, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and foreign inland

freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, air freight, U.S. brokerage and handling charges,

credit expenses and U.S. and Colombian indirect selling expenses

including inventory carrying costs. Because Clavecol did not adequately

support its reported interest rate, we used the highest public interest

rate on the record in the companion investigation of roses from Ecuador

which is a ranged value for a U.S. subsidiary of an Ecuadoran rose

producer, Guaisa, of 10 percent (See the September 12, 1994,

concurrence memorandum and the September 9, 1994, memorandum to the

file).

7. Grupo Floramerica

For Grupo Floramerica, we calculated ESP based on packed prices to

unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import

duties, brokerage and handling, United States Department of Agriculture

inspection fees, warranty expenses including billing credits,

promotional fees, credit expenses and U.S., Panamanian and Colombian

indirect selling expenses including inventory carrying costs.

8. Grupo Papagayo

For Grupo Papagayo, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and other

expenses.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight,

brokerage and handling charges, Colombian indirect selling expenses

including inventory carrying costs, direct selling expenses including

credit, other expenses, and commissions paid to unrelated parties.

9. Grupo Sabana

For Grupo Sabana, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight,

air freight and U.S. import duties.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for

discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties and

credit expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted the greater of

related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.

10. Grupo Sagaro

For Grupo Sagaro, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties and credit expenses.

11. Grupo Tropicales

For Grupo Tropicales, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and air

freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for

discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, credit expenses, other

direct selling expenses, and U.S. and Colombian indirect selling

expenses including inventory carrying costs.

12. Rosex LTDA

For Rosex LTDA, we calculated purchase price based on packed,

f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.

We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign

inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, brokerage and handling

and credit expenses.

Foreign Market Value

In calculating FMV, wherever there were no sales of comparable

merchandise in the home market or third country markets, we based FMV

on CV. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.58, for price to

price comparisons, we compared U.S. sales to home market or third

country sales made at the same level of trade, where possible.

We have three different bases for FMV: (1) Home market sales; (2)

third country sales; and (3) constructed value. Each is discussed

separately below:

Home Market Sales

In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of fresh

cut roses in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating

FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales of export quality

roses to the volume of third country sales of export quality roses in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Based on this

comparison, we determined that nine of the 16 respondents had viable

home markets. The nine companies were: Agricola Benilda; Flores La

Fragancia S.A.; Grupo Bojaca; Caicedo Group; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo

Intercontinental; Grupo Papagayo; Grupo Prisma and Grupo Sagaro.

However, we did not use home market sales for Agricola Benilda, Grupo

Intercontinental, Grupo Prisma or Grupo Andes because we based the

margin for these companies on BIA. In addition, we based Grupo Andes'

margin on BIA because we found that it had misrepresented its home

market as nonviable (See the ``Best Information Available'' section of

this notice for a further discussion).

Because petitioner's allegations, when considered in light of the

information on the record, gave the Department ``reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect'' that the nine respondents with known viable home

markets were selling roses in Colombia at prices below their COP, the

Department initiated COP investigations to determine whether these

respondents had home market sales that were made at less than their

respective COPs (See the September 8, 1994, memorandum from Richard W.

Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford). Respondents requested that we depart

from our normal practice and interpret our COP analysis in such a

manner as to either accept or reject all sales. We denied this request

as unreasonable (See the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).

In keeping with our past practice involving perishable agricultural

products where we found less than 50 percent of a respondent's sales of

roses were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost

sales because we determined that the respondent's below-cost sales were

not made in substantial quantities (See Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables

From Mexico 45 FR 20512 (1980)). Where we found between 50 and 90

percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below

the COP, and the below cost sales were made over an extended period of

time, we disregarded only the below-cost sales. Where we found that

more than 90 percent of respondent's sales were at prices below the

COP, and the sales were made over an extended period of time, we

disregarded all sales for that product and calculated FMV based on CV.

In order to determine whether home market prices were above the

COP, we calculated the COP based on the sum of a respondent's cost of

cultivation, general expenses, and packing. We calculated CV based on

the sum of a respondent's cost of cultivation, plus general expenses,

profit and U.S. packing. For general expenses, which includes selling

and financial expenses (SG&A), we used the greater of the reported

general expenses or the statutory minimum of ten percent of the cost of

cultivation. For profit, we used the greater of the weighted-average

third country profit during the POI or the statutory minimum of eight

percent of the cost of cultivation and general expenses, in accordance

with section 773(e)(B) of the Act.

For all respondents, we corrected the calculation of interest

expense for COP to remove the offset to this expense. This reduction to

interest expense is only applicable for CV calculations. Interest

expense for all respondents was corrected to a per-unit amount.

Further, for all respondents we based the amortization expense upon the

amounts normally recorded by each company in its usual record keeping.

We rejected adjustments that companies made to the amortization expense

solely for purposes of this investigation. We also made specific

adjustments to respondents' COP and CV data as described below:

1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.

For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we: (1) Corrected the calculation of

greenhouse plastic amortization to reflect the methodology normally

used by the company; (2) corrected the reported ``material for

greenhouse frames'' to agree with the underlying schedules provided in

the response; (3) corrected the reported net financing costs to agree

to the underlying schedules; and (4) corrected for a mathematical error

in the calculation of SG&A expenses.

2. Grupo Bojaca

For Grupo Bojaca, we corrected the reported general and

administrative (G&A) expense amount to reflect the amount reported in

the company's financial statement.

3. Caicedo Group

For Caicedo Group, we included the expenses associated with a

freeze which occurred during the POI, and removed the effect of

erroneous crop adjustment amounts (i.e., capitalizing more costs than

the total accumulated amount) reported in the COP calculation.

4. Grupo Papagayo

For Grupo Papagayo, we removed the effect of erroneous crop

adjustment amounts (i.e., capitalizing more costs than the total

accumulated amount) reported in the COP calculation.

In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as

described below:

1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.

For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we calculated FMV based on delivered

prices to unrelated customers in the home market.

For home market price to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to

section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit

expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs.

For home market price to ESP comparisons, we deducted the weighted-

average home market indirect selling expenses, including, where

appropriate, inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater

of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on

U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) (See the September

12, 1994, concurrence memorandum). We deducted home market packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs.

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale

adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home

market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs,

up to the amount of the greater of related party commissions or

indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(b)(2).

2. Grupo Bojaca

For Grupo Bojaca, more than 90 percent of Grupo Bojaca's home

market sales were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded all home

market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale

adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we deducted the weighted-average home

market indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate,

inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the indirect selling

expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2).

3. Caicedo Group

For Caicedo Group, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to

unrelated customers in the home market. We excluded from our analysis

home market sales that were ultimately exported.

For home market price to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to

section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit

expenses and CFC fee. We deducted home market packing costs and added

U.S. packing costs.

For home market price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where

appropriate, for credit expenses. We also deducted the weighted-average

home market indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate,

inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related

party commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted home market packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs.

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale

adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses and CFC fee.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home

market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs,

up to the amount of the greater of related party commissions or

indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(b)(2).

For comparisons involving ESP sales, we revised U.S.-incurred

indirect selling expense to: (a) Include sales to local vendors in the

calculation of the indirect selling expense ratio and (b) deduct U.S.

inland freight expenses that were reported as indirect selling

expenses.

4. Grupo Floramerica

For Grupo Floramerica, more than 90 percent of Grupo Floramerica's

home market sales were found to be at prices below their COP.

Therefore, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded

all home market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home

market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling

expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2).

5. Grupo Papagayo

For Grupo Papagayo, more than 90 percent of its home market sales

were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, we disregarded

all home market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.

Due to the deficiencies found in respondent's reported home market

sales data, we disallowed home market inland freight, packing costs,

indirect selling expenses, and imputed credit from the dumping margin

calculation for purposes of the preliminary determination.

On September 9, 1994, Agrorosas submitted a letter containing some

pre-verification corrections pertaining to its sales and cost data.

Given the limited time available to the Department to examine the newly

submitted information, this information is not used in the preliminary

determination dumping margin. However, the newly submitted information

will be subject to verification and will be considered in the final

determination of this investigation.

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of

sales adjustment for direct selling. We also added U.S. commissions.

No deductions were made for CV to ESP comparisons due to

disallowing home market indirect selling expenses from the margin

calculation.

6. Grupo Sagaro

For Grupo Sagaro, more than 90 percent of its home market sales

were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded all home market sales and

calculated FMV based on CV.

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale

adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount

of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with

19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

Third Country Versus Constructed Value

On March 30, 1994, counsel for 14 of the 16 respondents requested

that the Department reject third-country sales and rely instead on

constructed value as the basis for FMV.

The Department's normal preference, based on its regulations, is to

utilize third-country sales rather than constructed value when there is

a viable third country market. See 19 CFR 353.48(b). Respondents have

urged departure from this practice, citing Certain Fresh Cut Flowers

from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

55 FR 20491 (May 17, 1990)(Flowers). The Department determined in

Flowers that departure from our normal practice was warranted after an

analysis of three unusual factors present in that case. Respondents

argue that the facts in this investigation present even more compelling

reasons to reject third-country sales than were present in Flowers. In

determining whether the circumstances in this case are such that it

should fall under the exception established in Flowers, we have

analyzed the information presented in light of the three factors set

forth in Flowers: (1) Negative correlation of price and volume

movements between markets; (2) peak to non-peak comparisons; and (3)

the perishability of the subject merchandise.

As a threshold matter, we note that the record in this case is

different from Flowers in that European markets play a relatively less

important role in our analysis. In Flowers, the Department's analysis

focused solely on a comparison of the U.S. market with European markets

as the vast majority of third country markets under consideration were

in Europe. The Department did not evaluate conditions in other markets.

In this case, and the companion investigation in Ecuador, respondents

reported significant sales to Argentina and Canada, as well as Europe.

Respondents in this case have submitted additional information for all

the relevant markets--Europe, Canada, and Argentina. However, it is not

clear that the information submitted up to this point supports

respondents' assertion that sales in the third country markets should

not be compared to U.S. sales in this case.

Negative Correlation Factor

In Flowers, the Department found a negative correlation between

price and volume movements in the United States and European markets.

This negative correlation indicated that price differences between

markets could either mask or exaggerate dumping. The Department

determined that the negative correlation was caused by a number of

elements, including: (1) The greater price and volume volatility of the

U.S. market; (2) the sporadic, gift-giving nature of U.S. demand; (3)

respondents' lack of access to the European auctions (the main

distribution point for flowers in Europe), and (4) differing peak price

periods.

Respondents argue that, in this case, there is similar evidence of

a negative correlation of price and volume movements between the U.S.

and third country markets. In support of their position, respondents

have submitted several reports. A 1994 report by Professor Tayama

analyzes, among other things, the consumption patterns for roses in the

United States, Europe, Canada and Argentina, and compares seasonal and

holiday purchasing patterns in the markets. Tayama asserts that both

Europe and Canada have mature and relatively stable markets because

both markets are supply driven (i.e., in times of peak production as

supply increases, prices go down). In contrast, Tayama claims that' the

U.S. market is demand driven--the majority of sales are made for

Valentine's Day when demand increases and prices rise. With regard to

Argentina, Tayama states that roses are grown for home consumption and

imports occur mainly during the winter months, as in Europe. Moreover,

Tayama asserts, Argentina has a different seasonal and holiday pattern

from the United States. No market, he states, has the extraordinary

demand for roses that exists in the U.S. market on Valentine`s Day.

Petitioners have countered Tayama's assertions with an August 10,

1994, submission which contains, among other things, a report by Roses

Inc., an association of U.S. rose producers. The Roses Inc. report

raises questions about the conclusions in the Tayama report, asserting

that: 1) there is a global market for roses which is driven by demand

everywhere; and 2) key holiday periods are actually very similar

between the United States and Europe--specifically that the highest

prices in both the United States and Europe occur in February. Thus, we

are not in a position to conclude that the Tayama report provides a

sufficient basis to determine that comparison of U.S. sales to third

country sales is inappropriate.

In support of the conclusions drawn in the Tayama report,

respondents submitted the 1994 Fresh Cut Roses: Issues in the

Estimation of Dumping in the U.S. Market (Botero Report) which contains

a statistical analysis of the United States, European, and Canadian

markets and seeks to demonstrate the lack of correlation between price

movements in the third country and U.S. markets. The Botero Report

provides three types of statistical analyses which, according to

respondents, support their contention that third country prices should

not be used due to the ``different equilibrium conditions'' of these

markets as compared to the U.S. market for roses. First, Botero

analyzes price movements within the United States, Europe and Canada,

from which he concludes that different market forces are at work (i.e.,

price and quantity movements within Europe and Canada are negatively

correlated and price and quantity movements within the United States

are positively correlated). Second, Botero analyzes price and quantity

movements across markets and concludes that there is no correlation

between the U.S. market and either the European or Canadian markets.

Third, he estimates the price cycles for roses in the U.S., European

and Canadian markets and concludes that ``the seasonal patterns of the

two markets [U.S. and European, U.S. and Canadian] are different and

therefore monthly price comparisons do not reflect price

discrimination.'' Botero asserts that these test results demonstrate

that prices in these third country markets should not be compared to

prices in the U.S. market to determine price discrimination.

We have reviewed the Botero Report and have concerns regarding the

data and the statistical parameters used to perform the statistical

analysis on European, Canadian and U.S. rose prices. For example, Dr.

Botero's relied on prices that may not be comparable. U.S. prices for a

single hybrid tea variety rose were compared to European prices for all

hybrid tea variety roses; and U.S. import prices, rather than U.S.

domestic prices, were compared to European domestic prices. These

comparisons may be inappropriate--we have no basis to conclude that a

single hybrid tea rose is representative of all hybrid tea roses, or

that U.S. import prices are representative of U.S. domestic prices.

Moreover, Dr. Botero's F-test results appear to be invalid. Dr. Botero

apparently used the incorrect degrees of freedom--(k,n-2) instead of

(k-1,n-2). More importantly, Dr. Botero appears to have misread the ``F

Table'': he reported the value of Fn-2,k at the 99 percent

confidence level, rather than Fk-1,n-2 at the 99 percent

confidence level. Finally, Dr. Botero provided no explanation of his

use of a 99 percent confidence level.

In light of these questions, the Department, at this stage, finds

the information on the record inconclusive as to whether the third

country and U.S. markets are negatively correlated. We intend to

further evaluate the Botero Report for purposes of making our final

determination. Further details relating to this issue are set forth in

the September 12, 1994, memorandum to Barbara Stafford.

Peak to Non-Peak Factor

Third country sales in Flowers were not made over the entire year.

They were made only in peak months. The record established that

Colombian growers had little access to the European auction system and

were only able to export flowers to Europe during those months when

domestic supply was low. On the other hand, the Colombian growers

targeted 80 percent of their production to the U.S. market and made

sales to the United States in every month. As a result, the Department

determined that it was unable to make contemporaneous sales comparisons

in all months and would be required to compare low-value U.S. sales in

off-peak months with high-value third country sales in peak months.

The circumstances on the record in this case are somewhat

different. One of the three companies reporting third country sales has

year-round sales to a single third country market, while the other two

companies have third country sales in every month in the markets

selected by the Department pursuant to Sec. 353.49(c). Therefore, it

appears that the Department may have sufficient contemporaneous sales

in the aggregate for all twelve months of the POI. Further, the

Department has based FMV on two six-month averages; the use of such

averages also should reduce any potential for distortion.

Perishability Factor

The third factor considered in Flowers was related to the role of

perishability on production and sale. This factor included: (1) The

extreme perishability of the subject merchandise; (2) the inability of

producers to control short-term production; and (3) the inability to

store or make alternative use of the product. The Department found that

the respondents planned 80 percent of their production around the U.S.

market and sold excess production in markets in which they did not

necessarily plan to sell. These factors combined to create a ``chance

element'' to third country sales which raised the concern that any

observed price differences would be unrelated to dumping.

We note that there are substantial similarities between flowers and

roses. First, roses, like flowers, are extremely perishable. Second,

rose growers have relatively greater, though still minor, control over

short-term production than flower growers because of their ability to

pinch back buds. Third, as with flowers, roses cannot be stored and we

note that there are only very minor alternative uses (e.g., drying).

While some respondents are able to sell a small percentage of their

production to markets other than the United States as a regular part of

their business plan, which reduces to some extent the ``chance''

element to selling excess production, we note that this was also true

with some companies in Flowers. See Methodological Issues Concerning

Colombian Cut Flowers, Sparks Commodities, Inc. 1989.

In view of the questions raised above, we conclude that, for the

purpose of the preliminary determination, the evidence at this stage is

not sufficient to justify departure from our normal practice of

reliance on third country prices. However, we intend to revisit this

issue in our final determination in light of further information and

analysis with regard to the three factors set out in Flowers as well as

any other facts that might be relevant on this issue.

Third Country Sales

For three of the 16 respondents, the home market was not viable;

therefore, we based FMV on third country sales (See the September 12,

1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford). These three

companies and their selected third country markets were: Grupo Clavecol

(Argentina and Canada); Grupo Sabana (Canada); and Grupo Tropicales

(Argentina and Germany). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(c), we

selected for two of these respondents more than one third country

because a single third country did not meet the Department's viability

standards.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49, we selected the appropriate third

country market(s) for each respondent based on the following criteria:

similarity of merchandise sold in the third country to the merchandise

exported to the United States, the volume of sales to the third

country, and the similarity of market organization and development

between the third country and U.S. markets. For a complete discussion

of the selection of third country market(s), see the June 24, 1994,

memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford.

Based on petitioner's allegations that Grupo Tropicales was selling

roses in Argentina at prices below its COP, and information on the

record, the Department had a reasonable basis to suspect or believe

that sales were made below cost and therefore initiated a COP

investigation to determine whether Grupo Tropicales had Argentine sales

that were made at prices less than their COP. Although Grupo Tropicales

also had third country sales to Germany, we did not initiate a COP

investigation on these sales because they were not included in

petitioner's COP allegation (See the September 8, 1994, memorandum from

Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).

For a discussion of our COP test methodology, see the ``Home Market

Sales'' section above. We made no adjustments to the COP and CV data

submitted by Grupo Tropicales.

In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as

described below:

1. Grupo Clavecol

For Grupo Clavecol, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to

unrelated customers in Argentina and Canada.

For third country to purchase price comparisons, we made deductions

for foreign inland freight, air freight, and brokerage and handling,

where applicable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for credit expenses. We deducted third country packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs.

For third country to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight and brokerage and

handling. We also deducted the weighted-average Argentine and Canadian

indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, inventory

carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related party

commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs.

2. Grupo Sabana

For Grupo Sabana, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to

unrelated customers in Canada.

For third country price to purchase price comparisons, we made

deductions for Canadian inland freight, air freight, Canadian import

duties, U.S. brokerage and Colombian inland freight. Pursuant to

section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit

expenses. We deducted third country packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs.

For third country price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions,

where appropriate, for Canadian inland freight, air freight, Canadian

import duties, Canadian brokerage and Colombian inland freight. In

addition, we made deductions for credit and direct selling expenses in

Canada. We also deducted the weighted-average Canadian and Colombian

indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, inventory

carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related party

commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs.

3. Grupo Tropicales

For Grupo Tropicales, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices

to unrelated customers in Argentina and Germany.

For third country price to purchase price comparisons, we made

deductions for foreign inland freight. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B)

and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments,

where appropriate, for credit expenses. We deducted third country

packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

For third country price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland freight. In addition, we made

deductions for credit. We also deducted the weighted-average Argentine

and German indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate,

inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the indirect selling

expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs.

Constructed Value

For three of the 16 respondents, we calculated FMV based directly

on CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, because these

respondents did not have adequate sales in either the home market nor

in any third country markets during the POI. These three companies

were: Agrorosas S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A. and Rosex LTDA. We calculated

CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of cultivation, plus general

expenses, profit and U.S. packing. For general expenses, we used the

greater of the reported general expenses or the statutory minimum of

ten percent of the cost of cultivation. For profit, we used the greater

of the weighted average third country profit during the POI or the

statutory minimum of eight percent of the cost of cultivation and total

SG&A expenses, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.50(a)(2).

For these respondents, we based the amortization expense upon

amounts normally recorded by each company in their usual record

keeping. We rejected adjustments that companies made to the

amortization expense solely for purposes of this investigation. We also

made specific adjustments to respondents' CV data as described below:

1. Agrorosas S.A.

For Agrorosas S.A., we did not consider the minor pre-verification

correction filed on September 9, 1994 for the preliminary

determination. This data will be fully analyzed for our final

determination.

2. Flores Mocari S.A.

For Flores Mocari S.A., we revised the calculation of interest

expense to express the expense as a per-unit amount.

3. Rosex LTDA

For Rosex LTDA, we also revised the calculation of interest expense

to express the expense as a per unit amount.

In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as

described below:

1. Agrorosas S.A.

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of sale

adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the

weighted-average U.S. indirect selling expenses up to the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19

CFR 353.56(b)(2).

2. Flores Mocari S.A.

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale

adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, up to

the amount of the greater of related party commissions or indirect

selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2).

3. Rosex LTDA

For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale

adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.

For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,

for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount

of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with

19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

Currency Conversion

Regarding transactions in third country currencies, we made

currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect

during the month of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Because certified exchange rates for Colombia were unavailable from

the Federal Reserve, we made currency conversions for expenses

denominated in Colombian pesos based on the official monthly exchange

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as published by the

International Monetary Fund.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the

information used in making our final determination.

Critical Circumstances

In the petition, petitioner alleged that ``critical circumstances''

exist with respect to importation of roses. However, we did not

initiate a critical circumstances investigation because, since roses

are extremely perishable, it is not possible to accumulate an inventory

of roses in order to evade a potential antidumping duty order.

Therefore, we determined that an allegation that critical circumstances

exist is without merit (See the September 12, 1994, concurrence

memorandum).

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing

the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of fresh cut

roses from Colombia, as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation''

section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit

or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping

margins, as shown below. The suspension of liquidation will remain in

effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter percent

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

Agrorosas.................................................. 4.93

Grupo Papagayo (and its related farms Agricola Papagayo,

Inversiones Calypso S.A., Omni Flora Farms Inc., and Perci

S.A.)..................................................... 8.02

Flores Mocari S.A. (and its related farms Cultivos

Miramonte and Devor Colombia)............................. 13.86

Grupo Sabana (and its related farms Flore de la Sabana S.A.

and Roselandia S.A.)...................................... 34.35

Flores la Frangancia....................................... 27.60

Grupo Benilda (and its related farms Agricola La Maria

S.A., Agricola La Celestina Ltda., and Agricola Benilda

Ltda.).................................................... 55.94

Grupo Clavecol (and its related farms Claveles Colombianos

Ltda., Sun Flowers Ltda., Fantasia Flowers Ltda., Splendid

Flowers Ltda.)............................................ 4.58

Floramerica Group (and its related farms Floramerica S.A.

(Santa Lucia and Santa Barbara Farms), Jardines de

Colombia Ltda., Flores Las Palmas Ltda., Cultivos del

Caribe Ltda., Jardines del Valle Ltda., and Cultivos San

Nocolas Ltda.)............................................ 10.55

Rosex (and its related farms Rosex Ltda. (La Esquina and

Paraiso Farms), Induflora Ltda., and Rosas Sausalito

Ltda.).................................................... 13.96

Grupo Sagaro (and its related farms Flores Sagaro S.A. and

Las Flores S.A.).......................................... 5.26

Grupo Tropicales (and its related farms Rosas Colombianas

Ltda., Happy Candy Ltda., Mercedes Ltda., and Flores

Tropicales Ltda.)......................................... 50.96

Grupo Prisma (and its related farms Flores del Campo Ltda.,

Flores Prisma S.A., Flores Acuarela S.A., Flores el Pincel

S.A., Rosas del Colombia Ltda., Agropecuaria Cuernavaca

Ltda.).................................................... 55.94

Grupo Bojaca (and its related farms Agricola Bojaca Ltda.,

Universal Flowers, and Plantas y Flores Tropicales Ltda.

(Tropifora)).............................................. 21.21

Andes Group (and its related farms Flores Horizonte,

Cultivos Buenavista, Flores de los Andes, and Inversiones

Penasblancas)............................................. 55.94

Caicedo Group (and its related farms Agrobosque, Productos

el Rosal S.A., Productos el Zorro S.A., Exportaciones

Bochia S.A.--Flora Ltda., Flores del Cauca, Aranjuez S.A.,

Andalucia S.A., Inverfloral S.A., and Great America

Bouquet).................................................. 29.60

Grupo Intercontinental (and its related farms Flora

Intercontinental and Flores Aguablanca)................... 55.94

All Others................................................. 33.87

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

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,

the ITC will determine whether imports of the subject merchandise are

materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry,

before the later of 120 days after the date of the preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final determination.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written

comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no later than October 17, 1994, and

rebuttal briefs no later than October 24, 1994. In accordance with 19

CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to give

interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in

case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

October 25, 1994, at 9:30 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the

hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a

written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of the

publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Request should

contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the

number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentation will be limited

to issues raised in the briefs.

This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(f)) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

Dated: September 12, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-23195 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P