Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]

Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner, the Fresh Garlic

Producers Association and its individual members, and an importer, the

Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of

China. The period of review is November 1, 1995, through October 31,

1996. Petitioner requested a review of eight exporters. Haitai America,

Inc., a U.S. importer, requested a review of sales of its exporter/

producer Rizhao Hanxi Fisheries & Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd.

Because we have determined that one named respondent has failed to

submit a complete response to our questionnaire and the remaining named

respondents failed to respond at all to our questionnaires, we have

preliminarily determined to use facts otherwise available for cash

deposit and assessment purposes for all producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each

argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Chu or Thomas O. Barlow, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, 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:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

On November 4, 1996, the Department published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 56663) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order (59 FR 59209,

November 16, 1994) on fresh garlic from the PRC. On November 27, 1996,

petitioner requested an administrative review of eight producers/

exporters of this merchandise

[[Page 33602]]

to the United States. On December 2, 1996, Haitai America, a U.S.

importer of the merchandise, requested a review of its exporter/

producer, Rizhao Hanxi Fisheries & Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd.

(Rizhao). We published a notice of initiation of this review on

December 16, 1996 (61 FR 66017), and on January 17, 1997, we sent

questionnaires to the Embassy of the PRC, the Ministry of Foreign Trade

and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) and the nine respondent firms named

in the initiation notice.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review are all grades of garlic, whole

or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh,

chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other

neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of

other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades

are based on color, size, sheathing and level of decay.

The scope of this order does not include: (a) Garlic that has been

mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively,

destined for non-fresh use; or (b) garlic that has been specially

prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and

otherwise prepared for use as seed.

The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and

for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under

subheadings 0703.20.0000, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and

2005.90.9500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic

entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is (1)

mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for

non-fresh use or (2) specially prepared and cultivated prior to

planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must

be accompanied by declarations to the Customs Service to that effect.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

On January 17, 1997, we sent questionnaires to the Embassy of the

PRC, MOFTEC and the nine respondent firms named in the initiation

notice. We did not receive a response from either the PRC embassy or

MOFTEC. Only one respondent, Rizhao, has responded to any part of our

antidumping questionnaire. However, Rizhao did not provide factors-of-

production data and therefore has not provided a response with

sufficient information to enable us to proceed with our dumping

analysis. We also do not have any information on the record with regard

to the other eight named respondents. Therefore, we must rely on facts

otherwise available in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act for

these preliminary results of review.

Because necessary information is not available on the record with

regard to sales by the named respondent firms, as a result of their

withholding the requested information, we are preliminarily determining

to apply antidumping duties based on facts otherwise available pursuant

to section 776(a) of the Act. In addition, the Department finds that,

in not responding completely or at all to our antidumping

questionnaire, the firms failed to cooperate by not acting to the best

of their ability to comply with requests for information from the

Department.

Where the Department must resort to the facts otherwise available,

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an inference

adverse to the interests of that respondent in choosing facts

available. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to

use, as adverse facts available, information derived from the petition,

the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other

information placed on the record. Because information from the petition

and prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information,

section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the

extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply

that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information

to be used has probative value.

In this case, we are using as facts available the PRC-wide rate

determined for companies involved in the less-than-fair-value

investigation (376.67 percent). Although that rate constitutes

secondary information, the information has already been corroborated in

a prior review. See Final Results of Administrative Review: Fresh

Garlic from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 68229 (December 27,

1996). There is no evidence that would warrant revisiting that issue in

this review. Moreover, we have preliminarily determined that the non-

responsive companies do not merit separate rates. See, e.g., Natural

Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of

China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,

61 FR 57390 (November 6, 1996). Although Rizhao answered the separate-

rates and sales portions of the questionnaire, it failed to provide

factors of production data and therefore we do not have sufficient

data. Accordingly, Rizhao will receive the PRC-wide rate of 376.67

percent.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin

of 376.67 percent exists for all producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise for the period November 1, 1995, through October 31, 1996.

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of

the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may

request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice or

the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. The

Department will issue a notice of final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised

in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

The Department will determine, and the Customs Service will assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this

review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this administrative review for all

shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as

provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: for all PRC exporters

and for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the

cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate established in the final

results of this review.

These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties

[[Page 33603]]

prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's

presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

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

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: June 16, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-16247 Filed 6-19-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P