Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway, Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-403-801]

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway, Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 26, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic

salmon from Norway. The review covers 24 exporters, and the period

April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994. Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we determine the dumping margins for two of the

reviewed exporters, Skaarfish A/S (Skaarfish) and Norwegian Salmon A/S

(Norwegian Salmon), have changed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

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-

4106, or 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the

Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

On September 26, 1995, the Department published the preliminary

results (60 FR 49579) of its administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway (April 12,

1991, 56 FR 14920). The Department has now completed this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this review is fresh and chilled

Atlantic salmon (salmon). It encompasses the species of Atlantic salmon

(Salmo salar) marketed as specified herein; the subject merchandise

excludes all other species of salmon: Danube salmon; Chinook (also

called ``king'' or ``quinnat''); Coho (``silver''); Sockeye

(``redfish'' or ``blueback''); Humpback (``pink''); and Chum (``dog'').

Atlantic salmon is whole or nearly whole fish, typically (but not

necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and cleaned, with the head on. The

subject merchandise is typically packed in fresh water ice (chilled).

Excluded from the subject merchandise are fillets, steaks, and other

cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or

otherwise processed Atlantic salmon. Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon

is currently provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

subheading 0302.12.00.02.09. The HTS item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains

dispositive.

Cost of Production and Foreign Market Value

We calculated the cost of production (COP) of salmon sold by each

exporter based on the sum of the following: (1) The simple average of

farmers' costs of cultivation (COC) (which included the cost of

materials, fabrication, wellboat services, general expenses of the

farmer, and any applicable fees); (2) processing expenses; and (3) each

exporter's general expenses. The total COP was calculated on a

Norwegian kroner per kilogram (NOK/kg) basis.

Based on the comments presented by both respondents and petitioner,

and after further consideration and review, we have revised certain

costs as detailed in the comments below.

We calculated foreign market value (FMV) based on c.i.f., duty paid

prices to unrelated third country purchasers. We deducted, where

appropriate, third country inland freight, air freight, inland/marine

insurance, Norwegian export taxes, brokerage and handling, inland

freight in Norway, and third country import duties. We made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in

credit, commissions, and warranty expenses.

[[Page 65523]]

United States Price

We calculated the United States Price (USP) based on the price from

the Norwegian exporter to unaffiliated parties where these sales were

made prior to importation into the United States, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act.

We calculated the USP based on packed, ex-factory prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling,

Norwegian export taxes, U.S. duties, and air freight in accordance with

section 772(d)(2) of the Act. No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary

results. We received timely comments from two of the respondents,

Skaarfish Group and Norwegian Salmon, and the petitioner, the Coalition

for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade (FAST).

General Comments

Comment 1: Respondents contend that in establishing each

respondent's cost of production the Department should use the

acquisition prices from the unrelated fish farms rather than the

farmer's cost of cultivation. By using the farmer's cost of

cultivation, the respondents contend that the Department is departing

from its practice of relying on acquisition prices in establishing COP

when the supplier is not related to the respondent. Respondents claim

that the Department erred in determining that fish farmers are the

producers of the subject merchandise. According to respondents, the

fish farmers produce live salmon, which respondents consider to be an

input of the subject merchandise and outside the scope of the dumping

order. Respondents claim that the live salmon input is transformed into

merchandise covered by the scope of the order only through processing

by the respondents. Respondents cite Consolidated International

Automotive, Inc. v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 125, 128 n. 4 (CIT

1992) to demonstrate that, unless the sale of the input is by a related

party, the courts uphold the use of acquisition prices in determining

COP for a respondent.

Petitioner argues that the Department properly used the farms'

costs of cultivation to establish the subject merchandise's cost of

production. Petitioner points out that the Department rejected these

same arguments in past administrative reviews and should continue to

reject the argument that salmon is an input into the subject

merchandise as there are no new facts or legal authority to justify a

change in approach.

Department's Position: We consider the live salmon, produced by the

fish farmers and sold to exporters such as Skaarfish and Norwegian

Salmon, to be the same merchandise as is covered by the antidumping

duty order, but at an earlier stage of production. Accordingly, live

salmon is not an input but rather identical merchandise before it has

been made ready for sale and shipment. Consequently, respondents'

reliance on the Consolidated International Automotive decision is

misplaced.

As was found in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and

first administrative review, Skaarfish continues to process a portion

of its fish farm-sourced live salmon by gutting, cleaning, and

packaging it. Norwegian Salmon, and in some cases Skaarfish, purchase

and resell salmon that is already gutted and cleaned by the fish

farmers. There is no transformation of merchandise outside the scope of

the order to merchandise within the scope of the order as suggested by

respondents. Instead, respondents are acting primarily as a reseller by

merely preparing the merchandise for trans-Atlantic shipment. To

determine the cost of producing salmon, Commerce properly reviewed

respondents' costs as well as the fish farms' cost of cultivation.

Comment 2: The respondents argue that if the Department continues

to use its cost of production methodology, the Department should

develop an alternate methodology for selecting salmon farms. They

contend that the current methodology is designed to determine the

hypothetical costs of growing live salmon in Norway rather than to

determine the salmon costs of a specific respondent. Furthermore, they

allege that the methodology gives no consideration to the burdens

placed on the respondents resulting from the investigation of unrelated

live salmon suppliers. They further allege that inconsistent selection

practices occurred when the Department chose not to sample the farms of

one respondent, but chose to sample the farms of the other respondent.

Respondents argue that the Department should adopt a standard selection

methodology that does not place a financial burden on the respondents.

Petitioner argues that the Department's sampling methodology is

correct. Petitioner points out that the Department's methodology

ensured that farms were proportionately represented based on the

quantity of salmon supplied to each respondent. Petitioner argues that

the statute supports the Department's decision to sample one respondent

and not another.

Department's Position: We disagree with respondents. Respondents

are incorrect to contend that the current methodology is designed to

determine the hypothetical costs of growing live salmon in Norway

rather than to determine the salmon costs of a specific respondent. By

choosing to sample only those farms that supplied each exporter, the

Department is ensuring that the calculated costs of growing live salmon

are representative of that specific exporter.

The Department is aware that all administrative reviews place a

degree of burden on respondent firms. The Department intends to keep

those burdens manageable for both the respondents and itself. Under

section 777A of the Act, the Department has the discretion to sample

respondents. In deciding whether to sample, the Department determined

that it was both administratively necessary and methodologically

appropriate to sample among the 50 salmon farmers that supplied

Skaarfish A/S, but unnecessary to sample the nine salmon farmers that

supplied Norwegian Salmon.

Comment 3: Respondents argue that the Department's use of best

information available (BIA) should be revised to realistically reflect

the unique circumstances present in the review. Respondents contend

that they have no leverage over unrelated suppliers who have no

interest in the antidumping administrative review. Thus, the unrelated

suppliers have no incentive to supply confidential cost data.

Respondents propose that non-responding farms should be disregarded

from the sample. Alternatively, they argue that as BIA, the Department

should use the average COC of the responding farms rather than the COC

of the highest farm. Respondents point to Allied-Signal Aerospace Co.

v. United States, 28 F.3d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1994) to demonstrate that the

Department has the authority to adopt different approaches when

applying BIA.

Petitioner contends that the Department correctly applied BIA to

the unique circumstances of this review. Petitioner contends that the

salmon farmers do have a significant interest at stake in participating

in antidumping reviews. The salmon farmers are aware of the effect that

failing to respond has on the exporter's ability to sell their salmon

to the United States.

Department's Position: For Norwegian Salmon, we applied BIA to six

of the

[[Page 65524]]

nine farms, because those six did not submit questionnaire responses.

For Skaarfish, we applied BIA to four of the 13 farm selections,

because those four did not submit questionnaire responses. We chose as

BIA the highest calculated COC of the responding farms and applied that

COC to each of the nonresponding farms.

Under section 776(c) of the Act, the Department has the authority

to use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable

to produce information requested.'' Thus, the Department may resort to

BIA not only when a party ``refuses,'' but also when a party is

``unable'' to provide the requested information, for whatever reason.

The Allied Signal decision to which respondents refer affirmed the

Department's application of BIA to a non-recalcitrant party which was

unable to provide requested data.

The elimination of non-responding farms from the sample, as

respondents advocate, would reward non-responding farms and could

encourage non-compliance in future reviews. Moreover, it would impair

the integrity of the sample because it would detract from the

randomness of the results. Therefore, we continue to apply the same BIA

rules applied in the preliminary results.

Comment 4: Respondents argue that the Department should apply the

50-90-10 rule used with highly perishable products rather than the 10-

90-10 rule in determining when to disregard below-cost sales from the

calculation of FMV. Respondents contend that salmon is a highly

perishable product and that the salmon industry cannot respond quickly

to changing market conditions and must sell the salmon when the salmon

reach maturity. Respondents cite Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables from

Mexico, 45 FR 20512 (March 28, 1980) (Vegetables); Fall Harvested Round

White Potatoes from Canada, 48 FR 51669 (November 10, 1983) and Fresh

Cut Flowers from Mexico, 55 FR 12696 (April 5, 1990) to support their

position.

Petitioner contends that the Department correctly applied the 10/

90/10 test because the subject merchandise is not a highly perishable

product as defined by the Department in Vegetables. Petitioner points

out that, unlike Vegetables, the respondents in this case can control

the time of sale of the subject merchandise. In addition, the subject

merchandise is alive and not deteriorating at the time of the sales

transaction.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. As we have

explained in prior reviews of this order, under the 10/90/10 test, we

do not disregard sales if less than 10 percent are below cost and made

over an extended period of time; we disregard sales only if between 10

and 90 percent are below cost, and we disregard all sales if more than

90 percent are below cost. In past cases, the Department has used the

50/90/10 test in cases involving highly perishable agricultural

products. Under a 50/90/10 test, the Department would not disregard any

below-cost sales unless more than 50 percent of sales were below cost.

We believe that fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon is not a highly

perishable product. As we found in the original LTFV investigation and

first administrative review, farmers have the ability to control the

time of sale of their output without materially affecting the quality

of the merchandise. It is not unusual for farmers to delay sales for an

extended period of time until they receive a favorable price offer.

Moreover, exporters have the ability to coordinate future salmon

purchases with farmers to coincide with demand and processing

capabilities. Accordingly, application of the 50-90-10 rule is not

relevant in this case.

Comment 5: Norwegian Salmon and petitioner maintain that the

Department should correct a computer error in the margin calculations

for Norwegian Salmon where an expense, of a proprietary nature, was

incorrectly deducted twice from foreign market value.

Department's Position: We agree and have corrected this clerical

error by eliminating the double deduction.

Comment 6: Respondent argues that the Department used the incorrect

tax methodology to adjust for Norwegian export tax in the preliminary

results for Norwegian Salmon.

Petitioner claims that the Department simply did not subtract

Norwegian Salmon's export tax from its reported U.S. sales prices.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner and corrected this

error. Section 772 of the Act and section 353.41 of the Department's

regulations state that the export tax should be subtracted from U.S.

price. See 19 U.S.C. 1677a(d)(2)(B) and 19 C.F.R. 353.41(d)(2)(ii).

Comment 7: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly

stated in its September 26, 1995, Analysis Memorandum that there were

no third country sales below cost and, therefore, there were no

disregarded sales. However, according to the computer program, sales

were disregarded because Norwegian Salmon made third country sales

below the cost of production.

Norwegian Salmon contends that the Department incorrectly compared

Norwegian Salmon's third country sales to the cost of production on a

month-by-month basis rather than on a POR-model basis. Respondent

claims that the Department's computer program treats each month as a

model rather than comparing the one model of salmon to the COP for the

entire POR.

Department's position: We agree with both petitioner and

respondent. The Department incorrectly stated in the Analysis

Memorandum that there were no sales below the cost of production and,

therefore, there were no disregarded sales. Rather, the cost test

results indicated that third country sales made below cost should be

disregarded in its calculations for the preliminary results. For the

final results, however, we discovered that the calculation of above-

and below-cost data, used in the preliminary results, was inaccurate

due to an error in the computer program. This error has been corrected

for these final results.

Also, the Department did incorrectly treat each month of the POR as

a model, as asserted by respondent. The Department has corrected this

error. Sales of salmon are now compared to the cost of production on a

POR basis.

Norwegian Salmon Farm Specific Issues

Farm B

Comment 8: Petitioner contends that the Department's calculations

understated the feed costs for Farm B because they failed to

incorporate revised information contained in the verification report.

Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly stated and

allocated feed costs for Farm B. Respondent contends that the lower

feed costs used by the Department in its preliminary results are

correct because we also revised the total harvest weight of the 1992

generation salmon downward.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. In its preliminary

results, the Department failed to use the revised, higher total feed

costs that were based on information gathered at verification. This

error has been corrected. The respondent is incorrect that the revised

harvest quantities affect the total feed costs Farm B incurred. See

Farm B, Verification of Cost of Production, December 12, 1994.

Comment 9: Petitioner contends that there were no costs reported

for the 1992 generation salmon sold in calendar year 1994. As a result,

the net production quantity for Farm B was overstated due to the fact

that there

[[Page 65525]]

were 1992 generation salmon sales in 1994, but no associated 1994 costs

reported for the 1992 generation salmon. Petitioner advocates using

only the total quantity of 1992 generation salmon that was produced in

1992 and 1993 in the COC calculation.

Norwegian Salmon contends that the salmon sold in 1994 were

produced in 1992 and 1993. According to Norwegian Salmon, the COC

figures already include costs for the salmon that were sold in 1994,

and therefore no adjustment is needed.

Department's Position: We agree in part with both petitioner and

respondent. Petitioner is correct that there are no costs reported for

those 1992 generation salmon sold in 1994. However, as respondent

pointed out, the costs associated with the 1992 generation were

reported for 1992 and 1993. The net production quantities do not need

to be modified since the quantities produced in 1992 and 1993 and their

respective costs are not in question. Therefore to make the production

costs and production quantities correspond to the same period of time,

we corrected the total harvest quantity by eliminating the 1992

generation salmon harvested in 1994.

Comment 10: Petitioner contends that an extraordinary expense item

found in Farm B's 1993 general ledger should be included in Farm B's

1993 cost calculations just as a similar 1992 extraordinary expense

item found in its 1992 general ledger was included in Farm B's 1992

cost calculations.

Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly excluded the

extraordinary expense item in the calculation of Farm B's COC.

Respondent argues that Farm B, participating in its first

administrative review, incurred an extraordinary expense when it could

not collect on accounts receivable as a result of the Norske

Fiskeoppdretternes Salgslag (FOS) bankruptcy in 1991. Thus, respondent

claims that this extraordinary expense, although appearing in 1993's

general ledger, does not affect the COC of the 1992 generation salmon

under review.

Department's Position: We agree in part with both the petitioner

and respondent. The petitioner is correct that since the extraordinary

expense appears in Farm B's general ledger as an expense, it should

increase Farm B's COC. While respondent classifies this expense as an

``extraordinary''expense, it clearly does not meet the generally

accepted definition of an extraordinary expense. According to generally

accepted accounting practices, write-down and write-off of receivables

and inventory are not extraordinary because they relate to normal

business operational activities. Following the practice set in Fresh

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, (58 FR 37912), comment 18, these expenses are

not considered extraordinary and are included as a component of the

cost of cultivation. This expense, however, is clearly not related to

the 1992 generation salmon under review since the FOS bankruptcy

occurred before the 1992 generation salmon were put in the water. If

Farm B was involved in a previous review where this bad debt expense

was associated with the generation of salmon under review, the expense

would be included in the COC of that POR. Therefore, we excluded this

expense from the COC for the products currently under review.

Comment 11: Petitioner contends that several overhead cost items

reported by Farm B should be added to, and not excluded from, costs

associated with the 1992 generation under review.

Norwegian Salmon contends that the Department correctly allowed

certain overhead cost items to be deducted from Farm B's cost of

cultivation.

Department's Position: We agree with the respondent. Although the

Department did not verify these specific journal entries, we verified

the accuracy and integrity of Farm B's audited financial statements, of

which these specific entries are a part. Thus, in accepting the whole,

we accept the individual entries as presented by the respondent, unless

otherwise noted.

Farm C

Comment 12: Petitioner contends that the indemnity reported by Farm

C was not correctly reflected in the COC calculations. Petitioner

claims that the indemnity should be allocated to both 1991 and 1992

generation salmon rather than to just 1992 generation salmon.

Furthermore, if the indemnity is accepted by the Department, the

associated loss must also be accounted for in the cost calculations.

Norwegian Salmon argues that the Department correctly deducted and

allocated Farm C's indemnity. Respondent states that the indemnity was

not allocated to the 1991 generation because 1991 generation salmon

were at another location and were not affected by the underwater

detonations which caused the salmon loss. Respondent states that all

costs associated with the loss of salmon were fully accounted for in

Farm C's COC.

Department's Position: We note that Farm C received an indemnity to

compensate it for damage caused to its salmon farm by underwater

detonations. We agree that the indemnity was correctly allocated only

to the 1992 generation as the 1991 generation was kept at a different

location and not affected by these underwater detonations. However, we

failed to include Farm C's salmon loss, as it appears in its 1993

financial statements, in its COC calculations. We have corrected this

oversight by offsetting the indemnity received by the loss claimed in

Farm C's 1993 income statement.

Comment 13: Petitioner contends that according to the October 28,

1994, supplemental questionnaire response and Farm C's verification

report, the Department used incorrect feed costs and marketing expenses

for Farm C.

Department's position: The Department agrees and has used the

revised feed costs and marketing expenses found in the October 28,

1994, supplemental questionnaire response and Farm C's verification

report in the cost of cultivation calculation.

Skaarfish Farm Specific Issues

Farm A

Comment 14: Petitioner contends that the smolt costs that we used

in our calculations for Farm A were understated because the credit

costs incurred by the related smolt supplier of Farm A were not

included in the analysis.

Skaarfish maintains that Farm A did not understate the costs of

financing the smolt purchases from its related supplier. Respondent

argues that under the terms of delivery, if Farm A was granted a longer

period of time for payment, the financing cost associated with that

longer period was reflected in the higher unit price for the smolt.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The Department

verified the unit price of smolt purchased from Farm A's supplier. In

an arm's length transaction, those prices reflect the total costs

incurred by Farm A. We, therefore, used the respondent's reported smolt

prices in the calculation of Farm A's cost of cultivation.

Comment 15: Petitioner contends that the Department should use the

smolt costs contained in the Farm A verification report rather than the

smolt costs found in Farm A's general ledger.

Respondent argues that the two smolt amounts differ because the one

in the verification report includes the 20 percent value-added tax

while the amount found in the general ledger does not.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent. As noted in the

verification

[[Page 65526]]

report, the correct smolt expense is found in the general ledger, net

of the value-added tax.

Farm E

Comment 16: Petitioner contends that the Department should use the

smolt costs discovered at verification for Farm E.

Respondent maintains that Farm E correctly accounted for its smolt

costs. Respondent maintains that the amount petitioner is arguing in

favor of includes the value-added tax which does not belong in the

Department's cost calculations.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent. The correct smolt

expense is found in the general ledger, net of the value-added tax.

Farm G

Comment 17: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly did

not include any processing costs for Farm G.

Department's Position: We agree and have included the appropriate

processing costs for Farm G. We also discovered that an incorrect

processing cost was used for the farms that did not submit processing

costs. We replaced the processing cost used in the preliminary results

with the adjusted processing cost provided by Skaarfish in its August

11, 1994 submission.

Comment 18: Petitioner contends that the Department should not

allow the use of warranty expense data submitted by Skaarfish during

verification because it is new and unsolicited information.

Furthermore, petitioner claims that the use of this information

constitutes a double counting of warranty expenses. To demonstrate the

double counting, petitioner points to the August 25, 1994,

questionnaire response where Skaarfish stated: ``To the best of our

knowledge and belief there were no warranty expenses for sales to

France during the POR. In any event, a warranty will normally result in

a credit-note/price-reduction to the customer and is therefore covered

by the reported unit prices.''

Skaarfish argues that the Department has a long-standing policy to

accept corrections of previously submitted information at verification.

The error in reporting warranty expense information was a result of a

misunderstanding between company officials in France regarding what

constituted a warranty expense. Respondent claims that the error did

not amount to a comprehensive error or misstatement of fact, nor was

the information hidden or misrepresented during verification (citing

Disposable Pocket Lighters From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR

22359, 22365 (May 5, 1995).) Furthermore, respondent argues that there

is no evidence on the record to suggest a similar warranty expense on

U.S. sales.

Department's Position: We agree with respondent. At verification

Skaarfish discovered that there was a misunderstanding concerning

warranty expenses in the compilation of its questionnaire response. To

correct the mistake, Skaarfish submitted third country warranty expense

data at verification. It is the Department's practice to accept

corrections of previously submitted information at verification as long

as those errors are not comprehensive or exhibit a systematic

misstatement of fact. (See Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, From

the People's Republic of China, 58 F.R. 7537 (February 8, 1993).)

Furthermore, the Department verified the accuracy of the French

warranty data.

Comment 19: Petitioner contends that the Department should correct

the methodology Skaarfish used to allocate depreciation costs.

Petitioner argues that Skaarfish allocated depreciation expenses to

common areas and to non-production activities such as parking lots.

Petitioner proposes that the Department re-allocate depreciation costs

based on the relative space occupied by Skaarfish's production lines.

Department's Position: We agree, in part with petitioner.

Respondents incorrectly allocated depreciation expenses. However,

basing the allocation of all depreciation expenses on a square-meter

basis, as proposed by petitioner, neglects the level of financial

investment required for the various production activities. Therefore,

for these final results we allocated costs associated with the

depreciation of machinery and equipment on the basis of the

relationship of costs of processing salmon to all other products. The

costs associated with the depreciation of buildings were allocated on

the basis of square meters. This methodology more accurately reflects

the amount of depreciation expense to be allocated to subject

merchandise and is the methodology used in the first administrative

review. (See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 58 FR 37912).

Final Results of Review

As a result of comments received and programming errors corrected,

we have revised our preliminary results and determine that the

following margins exist for the period April 1, 1993, through March 31,

1994:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)

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

ABA A/S...................................................... *31.81

Artic Group.................................................. **31.81

Artic Products Norway A/S.................................... *31.81

Brodrene Sirevag A/S......................................... *23.80

Cocoon Ltd A/S............................................... *31.81

Delfa Norge A/S.............................................. *31.81

Delimar A/S.................................................. ***

Deli-Nor A/S................................................. ***

Fjord Trading LTD. A/S....................................... *23.80

Fresh Marine Co. Ltd......................................... **31.81

Greig Norwegian Salmon....................................... **31.81

Harald Mowinckel A/S......................................... *23.80

Imperator de Norvegia........................................ *31.81

More Seafood A/S............................................. *31.81

Nils Willksen A/S............................................ *31.81

North Cape Fish A/S.......................................... *31.81

Norwegian Salmon A/S......................................... 18.65

Norwegian Taste Company A/S.................................. **31.81

Olsen & Kvalheim A/S......................................... *23.80

Sekkingstad A/S.............................................. *23.80

Skaarfish-Mowi A/S........................................... 2.28

Timar Seafood A/S............................................ *31.81

Victoria Seafood A/S......................................... **31.81

West Fish Ltd. A/S........................................... *23.80

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

* No shipments during the period; margin from the last administrative

review.

** No response; highest margin from the original LTFV investigation.

*** No shipments or sales subject to this review; the firm had no

individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions concerning all respondents

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the

final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed firms

will be the rates indicated above; (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) if

neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review conducted by the Department or the LTFV

investigation, the cash deposit

[[Page 65527]]

rate will be 23.80 percent, the all others rate from the LFTV

investigation.

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 4, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-31590 Filed 12-12-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P