Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent To Revoke Order (In Part)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-301-602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent To Revoke Order (In Part)

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative reviews, partial termination of administrative reviews,

and notice of intent to revoke in part the antidumping duty order.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the

Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting three concurrent

administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Colombia. These reviews cover a total of 336 producers

and/or exporters of this merchandise to the United States for at least

one of the following periods: March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992;

March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993; and March 1, 1993 through

February 28, 1994. The reviews indicate the existence of dumping

margins for certain firms during the relevant periods.

We are terminating the administrative reviews with respect to 18

producers/exporters, because the Department either received timely

withdrawal of review requests from these firms, or the firms were no

longer subject to the order due to exclusion or revocation actions

taken by the Department. We are also announcing our intent to revoke

the antidumping duty order for the following exporters/growers:

Cultivos Miramonte, Flores Aurora, the Funza Group, and Industrial

Agricola. We determined that these firms have not sold the subject

merchandise at less than foreign market value (FMV) in these reviews

and for at least three consecutive administrative review periods, and

these firms have submitted certifications that they will not sell at

less than FMV in the future.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

the FMV. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results

of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the difference between the United States

price (USP) and the FMV.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results and intent to revoke.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. David Dirstine or Richard

Rimlinger, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 5, 1992, March 12, 1993, and March 4, 1994, the Department

published notices in the Federal Register of ``Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review'' (57 FR 7910, 58 FR 13583, and 59 FR 10368,

respectively) of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut

flowers from Colombia. On May 21, 1992, May 28, 1993, and May 2, 1994,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated administrative

reviews of this order for over 500 Colombian firms covering the periods

March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 (the 5th review), March 1, 1992

through February 28, 1993 (the 6th review), and March 1, 1993 through

February 28, 1994 (the 7th review), respectively (see 57 FR 21643, 58

FR 31010, and 59 FR 22579, respectively).

On May 9, 1994, the Department notified interested parties of its

decision to collapse these three reviews for the record, and to conduct

the three reviews concurrently. See Memorandum To File dated May 9,

1994.

We have preliminarily determined to revoke the antidumping duty

order for the following exporters/growers: Cultivos Miramonte, Flores

Aurora, the Funza Group, and Industrial Agricola. These firms have

submitted requests in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(b) to revoke the

order with respect to their sales of flowers to the United States.

Their requests were accompanied by certifications that they have not

sold flowers to the United States at less than FMV for at least a

three-year period, including the subject review periods, and will not

do so in the future. Since we preliminarily determine that these firms

have not sold the subject merchandise at less than FMV in these

reviews, and have not sold the subject merchandise at less than FMV for

at least the required three-year period, we intend to revoke the order

with respect to these companies.

The Department has now conducted the administrative reviews in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by these reviews are 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). The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains

dispositive.

Although we initiated reviews on over 500 firms, we have actually

reviewed a total of 336 firms for at least one of the three review

periods.

There was one firm, Agroteusa, which was not included in our

initiation notices but was included in these reviews because of its

close relationship to another firm for which reviews were initiated.

Subsequent to the publication of our initiation notices, we

received timely withdrawals of requests for Agricola Sagasuca (6th and

7th reviews), Daflor Ltda. (7th review), Flores el Tandil Ltda. (7th

review), Industrial Agricola (7th review), the Santana Flowers Group

[[Page 30271]] (consisting of Hacienda Curubital, Inversiones Istra,

and Santana Flowers) (7th review), and Velez de Monchaux e Hijos y Cia

(6th review). Because there were no other requests for review for the

companies and administrative review periods indicated above from any

other interested parties, we are terminating these particular reviews

with respect to these companies in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

We are also terminating the 5th and 6th administrative reviews

initiated for the Flores Colombianas Group (including Agrosuba Ltda.,

Flores Colombianas, Jardines de los Andes S.A., and Productos de

Cartucho S.A.) and Flores Condor, because these firms were subsequently

revoked from the antidumping order in an earlier review. Moreover, we

are terminating the 5th and 6th administrative reviews with respect to

Flores Timana Ltda., because this firm was originally excluded from the

order, and these reviews should not have been initiated.

In addition, at the request of the petitioner, we initiated reviews

for Agriflora (5th, 6th, and 7th reviews), Elite Farms (7th review),

Emerald Farms (7th review), and Comercializadora Caribbean (7th

review). The first three firms have informed us that they are flower

importers, and the last firm informed us that it is a freight

facilitator. Consequently, we are preliminarily terminating the reviews

with respect to these four firms.

During the course of these reviews, we learned that several

respondents were sufficiently related for us to collapse these firms,

or group of firms, into one entity for purposes of calculating a

dumping rate. The firms we considered one entity are: (1) Agricola las

Cuadras and Flores de Hacaritama; (2) Agricola de la Fontana, Flores de

Hunza, Flores Tibati, and Inversiones Cubivan; (3) Cultivos Miramonte

S.A. and Flores Mocari S.A.; (4) Agricola Guacari S.A., Flores Altamira

S.A., Flores de Exportacion S.A., Flores de Salitre, Four Farmers Inc,

S.B. Talee, and Santa Helena S.A.; (5) MG Consultores, Flores Canelon,

Flores la Valvanera, Flores del Hato, Agroindustrial del Riofrio,

Jardines de Chia, Queen's Flowers de Colombia, and Jardines Fredonia

(this group is hereinafter referred to as the ``Queen's Flowers

Group''). See Memorandum to File ``Collapsing Related Parties'': Farm

Fresh Flowers Group, dated November 14, 1994; Florex Group, dated

November 15, 1994, and November 21, 1994; Miramonte Group, dated

November 15, 1994; and Queen's Flowers Group, dated November 17, 1994,

and January 10, 1995 1. In the previous review covering the period

March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, we also collapsed (1) Agricola

Las Cuadras and Flores Hacaritama (2) Agricola Guacari S.A., Flores

Altamira S.A., Flores de Exportacion S.A., Four Farmers Inc, and Santa

Helena S.A., and (3) Jardines de Chia, Queen's Flowers de Colombia, and

Jardines Fredonia.

\1\ In these memos, we collapsed an additional 12 companies into

the Queen's Flowers Group. However, for purposes of these

preliminary results, we are considering only these eight companies

as one entity.

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

Finally, we initiated reviews for a large number of firms which

could not be located in spite of our requests for assistance from such

diverse sources as the Floral Trade Council (the FTC), Asocolflores,

the American Embassy in Bogota, and the U.S. Customs Service.

Therefore, we were unable to conduct administrative reviews for these

firms, and any entries into the United States on the part of these

firms will continue to be assessed duties equal to the ``all others''

rate of 3.10 percent from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation. The firms in question are:

Achalay

Agricola Altiplano

Agricola de Los Alisos Ltda.

Agricola de Occidente

Agricola del Monte

Agricola Megaflor Ltda.

Agrocaribu Ltd.

Agro de Narino

Agroindustrial Madonna, S.A.

Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.

Agropecuaria la Marcela

Agropecuaria Mauricio

Agrocosas

Agrotabio Kent

Aguacarga

Alcala

Alstroflores Ltda.

Amoret

Andalucia

Ancas Ltda.

A.Q.

Arboles Azules Ltda.

Caico

Carcol Ltda.

Classic

Clavelez

Coexflor

Color Explosion

Consorcio Agroindustrial

Columbiano S.A. ``CAICO''

Cota

Crest D'or

Crop S.A.

Cultivos Guameru

Cypress Valley

Degaflor

Del Monte

Del Tropico Ltda.

Disagro Ltda.

Diveragricola

El Dorado

Elite Flowers

El Milaro

El Tambo

El Timbul Ltda.

Euroflora

Exoticas

Exotic Flowers

Exotico

Exportadora

F. Salazar

Ferson Trading

Flamingo Flowers

Flor y Color

Flores Abaco, S.A.

Flores Agromonte

Flores Ainsus

Flores Alcala Ltda.

Flores Calichana

Flores Cerezangos

Flores Corola

Flores de Guasca

Flores de Iztari

Flores de Memecon/Corinto

Flores de la Cuesta

Flores de la Hacienda

Flores de la Maria

Flores del Cielo Ltda.

Flores del Cortijo

Flores del Tambo

Flores el Talle Ltda.

Flores Flamingo Ltda.

Flores Fusu

Flores Gloria

Flores la Cabanuela

Flores la Pampa

Flores la Union/Santana

Flores Montecarlo

Flores Palimana

Flores Saint Valentine

Flores San Andres

Flores Santana

Flores Sausalito

Flores Sindamanoi

Flores Suasuque

Flores Tenerife Ltda.

Flores Urimaco

Flores Violette

Florexpo

Floricola

Floricola la Ramada Ltda.

Florisol

Florpacifico

Flower Factory

Flowers of the World/Rosa

Four Seasons

Fracolsa

Fresh Flowers

Garden and Flowers, Ltda.

German Ocampo

Granja

Gypso Flowers

Hacienda La Embarrada

Hacienda Matute

Hana/Hisa Group

Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.

Flores Tokai Hisa [[Page 30272]]

Hernando Monroy

Hill Crest Gardens

Horticultura de la Sasan

Horticultura Montecarlo

Illusion Flowers

Indigo S.A.

Industria Santa Clara

Industrial Terwengel, Ltda.

Innovacion Andina, S.A.

Inversiones Bucarelia

Inversiones Maya, Ltda.

Inversiones Playa

Inversiones & Producciones Tecnicas

Inversiones Silma

Inversiones Sima

Jardin de Carolina

Jardines Choconta

Jardines Darpu

Jardines de Los Andes

Jardines de Timana

Jardines Natalia Ltda.

Jardines Tocarema

J.M. Torres

Karla Flowers

Kingdom S.A.

La Colina

La Embairada

La Flores Ltda.

La Floresta

Laura Flowers

L.H.

Loma Linda

Loreana Flowers

M. Alejandra

Mauricio Uribe

Merastec

Morcoto

Nasino

Olga Rincon

Otono

Pinar Guameru

Piracania

Prismaflor

Reme Salamanca

Rosa Bella

Rosales de Suba Ltda.

Rosas y Jardines

Rose

San Ernesto

San Valentine

Sarena

Select Pro

Shila

Solor Flores Ltda.

Starlight

Sunbelt Florals

Susca

The Rose

Tomino

Tropical Garden

Villa Diana

Zipa Flowers

Best Information Available

In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we have

preliminarily determined that the use of best information otherwise

available (BIA) is appropriate for certain firms. In determining what

is BIA, our regulations provide that we may take into account whether a

party refuses to provide information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). For purposes

of these reviews, we have used the most adverse BIA--generally, the

highest rate for any company for this same class or kind of merchandise

from this or any prior segment of the proceeding--whenever a company

refused to cooperate with the Department or otherwise significantly

impeded the proceeding. When a company substantially cooperated with

our requests for information, but failed to provide all the information

requested in a timely manner or in the form requested, we used as BIA

the higher of (1) the highest rate (including the ``all others'' rate)

ever applicable to the firm for the same class or kind of merchandise

from the same country from either the LTFV investigation or a prior

administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this

review for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise from the

same country. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, et

al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR

31692, 31704 (July 11, 1991); see also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v.

United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Because a number of firms failed to respond to our requests for

information, we have used the highest rate ever found in this

proceeding to establish their margins. This rate is 75.92 percent for

the 5th administrative review and 83.61 percent for the 6th and 7th

administrative reviews. The firms that have received adverse BIA rates

and the review periods for which these firms are receiving a BIA rate

(as indicated in parentheses) are:

Agricola Jicabal (5,6,7)

Agricola Malqui (5,6,7)

Agricola Monteflor Ltda. (7)

Agrobloom Ltda. (7)

Agrokoralia (5,6,7)

Bali Flowers (7)

Bloomshares (7)

Bogota Flowers (5,6,7)

Ciba Geigy (5,6,7)

Claveles Tropicales (7)

Colony International Farm (5,6,7)

Conflores Ltda. (5,6,7)

Cultivos el Lago (5,6,7)

Fernando de Mier (7)

Flora Bellisima (5,6,7)

Flores Alfaya (5,6,7)

Flores Arco Iris (5,6,7)

Flores Balu (7)

Flores Catalina (7)

Flores de Fragua (7)

Flores de la Pradera Ltda. (5,6,7)

Flores del Pradro (7)

Flores el Majui (7)

Flores Guaicata Ltda. (5,6,7)

Flores Magara

Flores Naturales (7)

Flores Petaluma Ltda.(5,6,7)

Flores Rio Grande (7)

Flores Santa Lucia (5,6,7)

Flores Suesca (5,6)

Flores Tejas Verdes (5,6,7)

Fribir Ltda. (7)

Groex S.A. (5,6)

Hacienda Susata (7)

Inpar (5,6,7)

Inter Flores (7)

Interflora Ltda. (5,6,7)

Internacional Flowers (7)

Invernavas (5,6,7)

Inversiones del Alto (7)

Inversiones Nativa Ltda. (5,6,7)

Jardin (5,6,7)

Jardines del Muna (5,6,7)

La Florida (5,6,7)

My Flowers Ltda. (7)

Naranjo Exportaciones e Importaciones (7)

Plantas Ornamentales de Colombia S.A. (7)

Rosas y Flores (5,6,7)

Rosicler Ltda. (5,6,7)

Sabana Flowers (5,6,7)

Sunset Farms (5,6,7)

Tempest Flowers (5,6,7)

As previously discussed under the Scope of Review section of this

notice, we have preliminarily determined that eight flower companies

are significantly related to each other to warrant collapsing their

sales and production information into the Queen's Flowers Group.

Although these companies provided responses to our questionnaire and

supplemental questionnaires, we did not receive complete information

regarding the interrelationships between these companies. In addition,

one firm had purchased major inputs from other members of the group but

failed to provide requested information establishing the arm's-length

nature of these transactions. Other members of the group failed to

identify their suppliers of inputs when requested to do so. Another

firm claimed it had no transactions with two particular customers, both

members of the group; however, there is information on the record from

these customers indicating that they had purchased subject merchandise

from this firm during the POR. Moreover, several companies failed to

notify the Department that they had included shared administrative

expenses in their constructed value response. Finally, one company

improperly amortized certain production expenses in an optional crop

adjustment methodology and failed to [[Page 30273]] correct the problem

in response to a supplemental questionnaire. These problems precluded

the Department from merging sales and constructed value data to form

one consolidated response for these related entities. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that the members of the Queen's Flowers Group

have significantly impeded our reviews and we have used as

uncooperative, or first-tier, BIA, the highest rate for any company for

this same class or kind of merchandise from this or any prior segment

of the proceeding.

Based on the responses provided by these eight respondents, we

believe that there are an additional 12 companies with strong ties to

the Queen's Flowers Group. We are giving these 12 companies an

opportunity to respond to our questionnaire. Since these companies were

not included in our ``Notice of Initiation,'' there will not be a

preliminary margin applicable to these companies. If, however, in our

final results of review, we conclude that any or all of these companies

are significantly related to the Queen's Flowers Group to be considered

to be one entity, the rates for the group will apply to these companies

as well.

Two firms, Agricola Uzatama and Proflores Ltda., responded to our

original questionnaire, but failed to respond to our requests for

supplemental information. We preliminarily determine that these

companies have not cooperated with our requests for information.

Therefore, we have preliminarily applied a first-tier BIA rate to these

firms for the seventh review, which is 83.61 percent, the highest rate

for any firm in any segment of this proceeding.

Although Iturrama and Santa Helena submitted responses to our

supplemental questionnaires, these firms failed to provide information

allowing us to correct serious deficiencies in their cost responses.

Therefore we were unable to use their cost data for comparison

purposes. However, because these firms substantially cooperated with

our requests for information, we have preliminarily applied a

cooperative, or second-tier, BIA rates to sales made by these

companies.

Flores el Zorro, Ltda., substantially cooperated with our requests

for information and provided complete sales and cost data for its U.S.

sales. However, the data provided by Flores el Zorro contained numerous

problems and deficiencies (specifically in the areas of indirect

selling expenses incurred in the United States, indirect selling

expenses incurred in the home market, financial expenses, and financial

income). Since insufficient information was placed on the record by

Flores el Zorro to correct these problems and we were unable to use the

firm's response to make comparisons because of the existing

deficiencies, we have preliminarily applied second-tier BIA rates to

sales made by Flores el Zorro for all three reviews.

We conducted verification of responses submitted by the Agrodex

Group, Cultivos Miramonte, Floralex, Flores Aurora, Flores Depina, the

Funza Group, Flores de la Vereda, Flores Juanambu, the Florex Group,

the Guacatay Group, the HOSA Group, Industrial Agricola, the Santana

Group, Senda Brava, and the Tinzuque Group. We encountered serious

verification problems with respect to Flores de la Vereda and Floralex.

During the verification of Flores de la Vereda, we could not

successfully verify completeness and accuracy of the company's sales

data. Also, during the verification of Floralex, we were unable to

verify the accuracy of the constructed value information submitted by

this firm. Because Flores de la Vereda and Floralex have substantially

cooperated with our requests for information, we have preliminarily

applied a second-tier BIA rate to these firms for all three reviews.

Also, we are applying a second-tier BIA rate to sales made by

Colflores, Flores Estrella, Flores Mountgar, and Flor Colombia S.A.

These firms are no longer in business, and we have preliminarily

determined, in accordance with the standards enunciated in Certain

Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, and Notice of Revocation of Order (in Part), 59

FR 15159 (March 31, 1994), that they are unable to respond to the

Department's questionnaire.

In certain situations, we found it necessary to use partial BIA for

a number of firms to correct for more limited response deficiencies. In

a supplemental questionnaire, Flores de Aposentos reported aggregate

carnation sales totals made through resellers which it knew were

destined for sale in the United States. Since these sales were not

broken down in the company's response as required by the Department's

questionnaire, we applied the BIA rate for cooperative firms and

limited its application to the particular sales involved.

In the case of Las Amalias, we found that the firm had reported its

sales prices to a related importer for certain U.S. sales transactions

instead of its sales prices to the first unrelated U.S. customer as

required by our questionnaire. We applied the BIA rate for cooperative

firms to these particular transactions.

United States Price

Pursuant to section 777A of the Tariff Act, 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 (see Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from

Colombia (56 FR 50554, October 7, 1991)).

In calculating USP, we used purchase price when sales were made to

unrelated purchasers in the United States prior to the date of

importation, or exporter's sales price (ESP) when sales were made to

unrelated purchasers in the United States after the date of

importation, both pursuant to section 772 of the Tariff Act.

We calculated purchase price based on the packed price to the first

unrelated purchaser in the United States. The terms of purchase price

sales were either f.o.b. Bogota or c.i.f. Miami. We made deductions,

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

and handling, U.S. customs duties, and return credits.

ESP, for sales made on consignment or through a related affiliate,

was calculated based on the packed price to the first unrelated

customer in the United States. We made adjustments, where appropriate,

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

charges, credit expenses, returned merchandise credits, royalties, U.S.

duty, and either commissions paid to unrelated U.S. consignees or

indirect U.S. selling expenses of related consignees.

Foreign Market Value

Section 733(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act requires the Department to

compare sales in the United States with viable home market sales of

such or similar merchandise sold in the home market or a third-country

market in the ordinary course of trade. Although some companies

reported either viable home or third-country markets for sales of

particular flower types, consistent with our discussion in Certain

Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Review, and Notice of Revocation of Order (in Part) (59 FR 15159, March

31, 1994), we have concluded that home market and third-

[[Page 30274]] country sales are not an appropriate basis for FMV.

The FTC, representing domestic parties in this proceeding, argues

that most of the conditions on which the above decision was based have

changed with respect to third-country sales for these reviews. The FTC

claims that sales by Colombian growers to third countries have

increased, and the FTC argues that Colombian growers now have greater,

unrestricted access to third-country markets, resulting in more stable

annual sales to those countries. Also, the FTC argues, this increase in

third-country demand for Colombian-grown flowers has affected the

production decisions of the Colombian growers and has helped to lessen

the seasonal disparities in market demand.

Based on our review of the questionnaire responses and other data

on the record, we have preliminarily concluded that the conditions

which governed sales in third countries have not changed significantly

between our last review and the current reviews. While we have found

that Colombian flower producers enjoy greater access and sales to

third-country markets, we find that the other conditions on which we

based our original decision to disregard third-country sales as a basis

for FMV still apply.

Although the petitioner argues that holidays in third countries

coincide with holidays in the United States, we find that, with a few

exceptions, such as Christmas, this is not the case. For example, there

are no flower-giving holidays in third countries that coincide with

Valentine's Day or Mother's Day, and there are no United States flower-

giving holidays that coincide with All Souls Day.

We find that the market patterns differ greatly between third

countries and the United States. The United States market is extremely

volatile, and can experience great price swings depending on the season

and whether there is a holiday. For example, flower prices on

Valentine's Day can increase by more than one hundred percent. This is

because United States consumers tend to purchase flowers only on

special occasions. On the other hand, third-country customers,

particularly those in Europe, tend to purchase flowers more for

everyday use. Therefore, demand and prices are much more stable in

Europe than in the United States. While price swings do exist, they do

not occur on the same order of magnitude as in the United States.

We find the FTC's argument that the correlation between flower

prices in the United States and in Europe justify the use of third-

country prices as FMV to be unconvincing. While the charts submitted by

the FTC in support of its argument indicate that there is a correlation

between flower prices in Miami, Florida, and flower prices in Europe,

we find the correlation to be weak, and we observed that prices in the

two markets moved in the opposite direction in approximately half of

the months of the year. The FTC also alleges that the prices of flowers

in California more closely correlate with the prices in Europe. While

the charts petitioner submitted indicate a moderate correlation, we

again observed that Californian and European prices moved in opposite

directions in nearly half of the months out of the year. Also, the vast

majority of Colombian flowers enter the United States in Miami,

Florida, and are sold there. In addition, we noted that the information

submitted by the FTC is for only one flower type and only covered part

of the 5th review period.

For these reasons, we have not used third-country sales as the

basis for FMV. Instead, we used constructed value as defined in section

773(e) of the Tariff Act for all companies. The constructed value

represents the average per-flower cost for each type of flower, based

on the costs incurred to produce that type of flower over each review

period.

The Department used the materials, fabrication, and general

expenses reported by respondents. The per-unit average constructed

value was based on the quantity of export quality flowers sold by the

grower/exporter to the United States. We consider non-export quality

flowers (culls) which are produced in conjunction with export quality

flowers to be by-products. Therefore, revenue from the sales of culls

was used as an offset against the cost of producing the export quality

flowers.

For cases in which actual general expenses exceeded the statutory

minimum of 10 percent of the cost of materials and fabrication, we used

the actual general expenses to calculate constructed value. For cases

in which actual general expenses were less than the statutory minimum

of 10 percent of the cost of materials and fabrication, we used the

statutory minimum of 10 percent. Because imputed credit was included in

constructed value, we reduced the actual interest expense reported in

the companies' financial statements to prevent double-counting.

When respondents indicated that the actual profit for merchandise

of the same general class or kind could not be calculated or was less

than eight percent of the sum of the cost of production and general

expenses, the Department used the eight percent statutory minimum for

profit. We added U.S. packing to constructed value. Adjustments to

constructed value were made for credit and indirect selling expenses.

Finally, according to the 1993 edition of Doing Business in

Colombia, published by Price Waterhouse, there has been a change in the

Colombian generally accepted accounting practices effective January 1,

1992. Firms are now required to revalue certain financial statement

accounts in order to reflect the effects of inflation experienced

during each financial reporting period. As part of this revaluation,

firms must restate their fixed asset accounts and their corresponding

depreciation expense. Respondents' restated depreciation expenses are

not reflected in the constructed value calculations used in our

preliminary results. We intend, however, to ask respondents to provide

additional data to allow us to make this adjustment for our final

results. We invite comments from interested parties on this matter.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP with FMV, we preliminarily

determine the margins for the 5th, 6th, and 7th administrative reviews

to be:

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

Producer/exporter 5th 6th 7th

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

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia.................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Agrex de Oriente............................. (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

AGA Group.................................... (\2\) (\2\) 9.03

Agricola la Celestina

Agricola la Maria

Agricola Benilda Ltda

Agricola Acevedo Ltda........................ 0.96 4.38 1.89

Agricola Arenales Ltda....................... 2.98 2.67 2.10

Agricola Benilda............................. (\1\) (\1\) 8.78

Agricola Bonanza Ltda........................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

[[Page 30275]]

Agricola Circasia Ltda....................... 14.21 0.41 1.29

Agricola el Cactus........................... 2.21 1.70 1.16

Agricola el Redil............................ 0.46 0.37 0.42

Agricola Guali S.A........................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Agricola Jicabal............................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Agricola la Corsaria......................... 4.85 2.89 1.78

Agricola las Cuadras Group................... 1.71 3.87 1.44

Agricola Las Cuadras Ltda

Flores de Hacaritama

Agricola La Siberia.......................... (\2\) (\2\) 26.94

Agricola Malqui.............................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Agricola Monteflor Ltda...................... (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Agricola Uzatama............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Agricola Yuldama............................. (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Agrobloom Ltda............................... (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Agrodex Group................................ 0.90 0.17 1.00

Agricola El Retiro Ltda

Agricola Los Gaques Ltda

Agrodex Ltda

Degaflores Ltda

Flores Camino Real Ltda

Flores de la Comuna Ltda

Flores De Las Mercedes 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 Puente Ltda

Flores El Trentino Ltda

Flores La Conejera Ltda

Flores Manare Ltda

Florlinda Ltda

Inversiones Santa Rosa ARW Ltda

Horticola El Triunfo

Horticola Montecarlo Ltda

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Group............. 4.03 1.68 1.30

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda

Celia Flowers

Passion Flowers

Primo Flowers

Temptation Flowers

Agrokoralia.................................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Agromonte Ltda............................... 7.51 1.40 2.10

Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.................. 2.59 4.59 1.70

Aspen Gardens Ltda........................... (\2\) (\2\) 12.28

Astro Ltda................................... (\1\) 20.25 20.59

Bali Flowers................................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Becerra Castellanos y Cia.................... 2.86 0.29 64.05

Bloomshare................................... (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Bogota Flowers............................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Bojaca Group................................. 75.92 19.96 0.21

Agricola Bojaca

Universal Flowers

Flores Y Plantas Tropicales

Caicedo Group................................ 0.19 2.53 8.64

Agro Bosque, S.A

Aranjuez S.A

Exportaciones Bochica S.A

Floral Ltda

Flores Del Cauca

Inversiones Targa Ltda

Productos El Zorro

Cantarrana Group............................. 1.74 4.89 1.07

Cantarrana Ltda

Agricola Los Venados Ltda

Ciba Geigy................................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Cienfuegos Group............................. 5.14 2.75 6.15

Cienfuegos Ltda

Flores La Conchita

Cigarral Group............................... 4.97 36.16 45.90

[[Page 30276]]

Flores Cigarral

Flores Tayrona

Claveles Colombianas Group................... 5.74 3.80 4.42

Claveles Colombianos Ltda

Fantasia Flowers Ltda

Splendid Flowers Ltda

Sun Flowers Ltda

Claveles De Los Alpes Ltda................... 0.96 6.38 3.77

Claveles Tropicales de Colombia.............. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Colflores.................................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Colibri Flowers Ltda......................... 3.19 2.05 2.93

Colony International Farm.................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Combiflor.................................... (\2\) (\2\) 0.37

Conflores Ltda............................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Cultiflores Ltda............................. (\2\) 0.00 5.51

Cultivos el Lago............................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Cultivos Medellin Ltda....................... 4.51 0.02 3.47

Cultivos Miramonte Group..................... 0.27 0.10 0.11

Cultivos Miramonte S.A

Flores Mocari S.A

Cultivos Tahami Ltda......................... 3.90 0.06 1.08

Daflor Ltda.................................. 0.16 0.31 (\2\)

De la Pava Guevara e Hijos Ltda.............. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Dianticola Colombiana Ltda................... 2.59 22.23 8.16

Dynastry Roses Ltda.......................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

El Antelio S.A............................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Envy Farms Group............................. (\2\) (\2\) 0.00

Envy Farms

Flores Marandua Ltda

Expoflora Ltda............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Exporosas.................................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Falcon Farms De Colombia S.A................. 0.00 0.00 0.13

(formerly Flores de Cajibio Ltda.)...........

Farm Fresh Flowers Group..................... 1.30 0.72 1.49

Agricola de la Fontana

Flores de Hunza

Flores Tibati

Inversiones Cubivan

Fernando de Mier............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flor Colombiana S.A.......................... (\2\) (\2\) 64.05

Flora Bellisima Ltda......................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flora Intercontinental....................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Floralex Ltda................................ 75.92 83.61 83.61

Florandia Herrera Camacho y Cia.............. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Floraterra Group............................. 17.31 5.37 9.04

Flores Casablanca S.A

Flores San Mateo S.A

Siete Flores S.A

Floreales Group.............................. (\1\) 8.93 4.56

Floreales

Kimbaya

Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda............. 0.62 13.89 7.70

Flores Acuarela S.A.......................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores Aguila................................ 0.02 (\1\) (\1\)

Flores Ainsuca Ltda.......................... (\2\) (\2\) 2.74

Flores Alfaya Ltda........................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores Andinas............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores Arco Iris............................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores Aurora Ltda........................... 0.03 0.31 0.01

Flores Bachue................................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores Balu.................................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores Carmel S.A............................ (\2\) (\2\) 2.24

Flores Catalina.............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores Colon Ltda............................ 0.90 1.96 1.08

Flores Comercial Bellavista Ltda............. 2.40 0.20 1.75

Flores de Aposentos Ltda..................... (\2\) (\2\) 2.83

Flores de Fragua............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores de la Montana......................... 6.27 0.14 4.51

Flores de la Parcelita....................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores de la Pradera......................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores de la Sabana S.A...................... 7.43 1.10 1.54

Flores de la Vega Ltda....................... 3.09 0.18 1.50

Flores de la Vereda.......................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores del Campo Ltda........................ 4.95 3.85 4.51

[[Page 30277]]

Flores del Lago Ltda......................... 3.74 0.14 1.55

Flores del Pradro............................ (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores del Rio Group......................... 0.15 5.03 4.16

Agricola Cardenal S.A

Flores Del Rio S.A

Indigo S.A

Flores de Oriente............................ (\2\) (\2\) 3.31

Flores Depina Ltda........................... 8.95 0.00 7.65

Flores de Serrezuela Ltda.................... 1.23 0.26 0.13

Flores de Suba............................... 8.63 3.10 5.37

Flores de Tenjo Ltda......................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores el Lobo............................... (\2\) 14.75 1.59

Flores el Majui.............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores el Molino S.A......................... 0.26 0.94 4.66

Flores el Rosal Ltda......................... 23.77 6.51 2.24

Flores el Zorro Ltda......................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores Estrella.............................. 75.92 83.61 (\2\)

Flores Galia Ltda............................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores Gicro Group........................... 5.82 5.78 5.09

Flores Gicro Ltda

Flores de Colombia

Flores Guaicata Ltda......................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores Hacienda Bejucol...................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Flores Juanambu Ltda......................... 0.69 1.08 1.62

Flores Juncalito Ltda........................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores la Fragrancia......................... 11.03 23.93 11.05

Flores la Gioconda........................... (\2\) (\2\) 1.99

Flores la Lucerna............................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores la Macarena........................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia........... 0.37 0.00 0.00

Flores las Caicas............................ 34.46 83.61 42.77

Flores las Mesitas........................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Flores los Sauces............................ (\2\) (\2\) 1.35

Flores Magara................................ (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores Monserrate Ltda....................... 1.49 3.32 1.09

Flores Monteverde Ltda....................... 5.03 3.20 3.42

Flores Mountgar.............................. 43.02 83.61 (\2\)

Flores Naturales............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores Petaluma Ltda......................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores Ramo Ltda............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores Rio Grande............................ (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Flores S.A................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores Sagaro................................ 0.17 1.12 2.59

Flores Sairam Ltda........................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Flores San Carlos............................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Flores San Juan S.A.......................... (\2\) (\2\) 3.50

Flores Santa Fe Ltda......................... 2.50 3.78 4.07

Flores Santa Lucia........................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores Selectas.............................. (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Flores Silvestres............................ 2.10 0.09 1.57

Flores (de) Suesca........................... 75.92 83.61 (\2\)

Flores Tejas Verdes Ltda..................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Flores Tiba S.A.............................. 1.06 2.20 0.09

Flores Tocarinda............................. 0.00 0.25 0.52

Flores Tomine Ltda........................... 1.17 0.00 1.17

Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group........ 1.25 4.77 6.14

Flores Tropicales Ltda

Happy Candy Ltda

Mercedes Ltda

Rosas Colombianas Ltda

Florex Group................................. 6.47 6.85 5.47

Agricola Guacari

Flores Altamira S.A

Flores de Exportacion S.A

Santa Helena S.A

Flores del Salitre Ltda

S.B. Talee de Colombia

Floricola La Gaitana S.A..................... 0.02 0.17 0.01

Florimex Colombia Ltda....................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Floval....................................... (\2\) (\2\) 7.22

Fribir Ltda.................................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Funza Group.................................. 0.04 0.25 0.47

[[Page 30278]]

Flores Alborada

Flores de Funza S.A

Flores del Bosque Ltda

Green Flowers................................ (\2\) (\2\) 12.57

Groex S.A.................................... 75.92 83.61 (\1\)

Grupo Andes.................................. 3.43 0.35 0.22

Cultivos Buenavista Ltda

Flores De Los Andes Ltda

Flores Horizante Ltda

Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda

Grupo el Jardin.............................. (\2\) (\2\) 0.40

Agricola el Jardin Ltda

La Marotte S.A

Orquideas Acatayma Ltda

Guacatay Group............................... 3.00 2.70 3.32

Agricola Guacatay S.A

Jardines Bacata Ltda

Hacienda Susata.............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Horticultura El Molino....................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Hosa Group................................... 0.65 0.18 1.26

Horticultura De La Sabana S.A

Innovacion Andina S.A

Minispray S.A

HOSA Ltda

Prohosa Ltda

Industrial Agricola Ltda..................... 0.39 0.43 (\2\)

Ingro Ltda................................... 8.23 0.02 1.20

Inpar........................................ 75.92 83.61 83.61

Interflora Ltda.............................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Inter Flores Ltda............................ (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Internacional Flowers........................ (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Invernavas................................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Inverpalmas.................................. 0.90 10.93 3.78

Inversiones Almer Ltda....................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Inversiones Cota............................. (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Inversiones Flores del Alto.................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Inversiones Morcote.......................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Inversiones Morrosquillo..................... (\2\) (\2\) 4.73

Inversiones Nativa Ltda...................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.................. 15.41 17.85 19.05

Inversiones Supala S.A....................... (\2\) 3.36 3.23

Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.............. (\2\) (\2\) 29.38

Iturrama S.A................................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Las Amalias Group............................ 8.89 4.05 2.80

Las Amalias S.A

Pompones Ltda

La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda

Ramiflora Ltda

Jardin....................................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Jardines de America.......................... (\2\) (\2\) 0.85

Jardines del Muna............................ 75.92 83.61 83.61

La Florida................................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

La Plazoleta Ltda............................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Linda Colombiana Ltda........................ 1.11 2.11 1.32

Las Flores................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Los Geranios Ltda............................ 6.69 0.29 1.19

Luisa Flowers................................ (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Manjui Ltda.................................. (\2\) 0.01 0.06

Maxima Farms Group........................... 0.33 0.64 0.10

Agricola los Arboles S.A

Polo Flowers

Rainbow Flowers

Maxima Farms Inc

Monteverde Ltda.............................. 5.03 3.20 3.42

My Flowers Ltda.............................. (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Naranjo Exportaciones e Importaciones........ (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Natuflora Ltda./San Martin Bloque B.......... 2.12 1.12 1.49

Oro Verde Group.............................. 2.10 1.05 0.19

Inversiones Miraflores S.A

Inversiones Oro Verde S.A

Papagayo Group............................... 3.23 9.52 2.11

Agricola Papagayo Ltda.

Inversiones Calypso S.A

Petalos De Colombia Ltda..................... 13.63 3.28 2.82

[[Page 30279]]

Pisochago Ltda............................... (\2\) (\2\) 8.77

Plantaciones Delta Ltda...................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Plantas Ornamentales De Colombia S.A......... 0.02 3.85 83.61

Plantas S.A.................................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Proflores Ltda............................... (\2\) (\2\) 83.61

Propagar Plantas............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Queen's Flowers Group........................ 75.92 83.61 83.61

Queen's Flowers De Colombia Ltda

Jardines De Chia Ltda

Jardines Fredonia Ltda

Agrodindustrial del Rio Frio

Flores Canelon

Flores del Hato

Flores La Valvanera Ltda

M.G. Consultores Ltda

Rosaflor..................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Rosales de Colombia Ltda..................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Rosalinda Ltda............................... (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Rosas de Colombia............................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Rosas Sabanilla Group........................ 0.22 0.49 0.17

Flores La Colmena Ltda

Rosas Sabanilla Ltda

Inversiones La Serena

Agricola La Capilla

Rosas y Flores Ltda.......................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Roselandia................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Rosex Ltda................................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Rosicler Ltda................................ 75.92 83.61 83.61

Sabana Flowers............................... 75.92 83.61 83.61

Sansa Flowers................................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Santa Rosa Group............................. 9.27 7.53 2.38

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda

Floricola la Ramada Ltda

Santana Flowers Group........................ 0.26 1.76 (\2\)

Hacienda Curubital

Inversiones Istra

Santana Flowers

Senda Brava Ltda............................. 13.12 0.00 1.53

Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda............... 3.61 0.19 0.00

Siempreviva.................................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Soagro Group................................. 8.66 10.01 3.71

Agricola el Mortino Ltda

Flores Aguaclara Ltda

Flores del Monte Ltda

Flores la Estancia

Jaramillo y Daza

Sunset Farms................................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

Superflora Ltda.............................. (\2\) (\2\) 5.58

Sweet Farms.................................. (\2\) (\2\) (\1\)

Tag Ltda..................................... 0.20 0.56 2.68

Tempest Flowers.............................. 75.92 83.61 83.61

The Beall Company............................ (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Tinzuque Group............................... 5.26 0.02 0.00

Tinzuque Ltda

Catu S.A

Toto Flowers Group........................... 1.19 1.93 0.06

Flores De Suesca S.A

Toto Flowers

The Tuchany Group............................ 0.52 0.43 0.55

Tuchany S.A

Flores Sibate S.A

Flores Munya S.A

Flores Tikaya Ltda

Uniflor Ltda................................. 5.54 0.68 2.75

Velez de Monchaux Group...................... 3.78 4.76 4.51

Velez De Monchaux e Hijos Y

Cia. S. en C

Agroteusa

Victoria Flowers............................. 0.62 2.13 1.61

Villa Cultivos Ltda.......................... (\2\) (\2\) 2.43

Vuelven Ltda................................. (\2\) 3.16 2.33

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

\1\ No U.S. sales during this review period.

\2\ No review requested for this period.

[[Page 30280]]

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days and

interested parties may request a hearing not later than 10 days after

publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit written

arguments in case briefs on these preliminary results within 30 days of

the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than 7 days after

the time limit for filing case briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will

be held 7 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 19 CFR 353.38(e). Representatives

of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary

information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days

after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the

proceeding, but in any event not later than the date the case briefs,

under 19 CFR 353.38(c), are due. The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a

hearing.

Upon completion of the final results in this review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between USP

and FMV may vary from the percentages stated above. 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 Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates established for the last covered

period in the final results of these reviews; (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 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 fair value investigation. These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results

of the next administrative reviews.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply

with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section

353.22 of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.22(c)(5)).

Dated: May 26, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-14074 Filed 6-7-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P