Fresh Kiwifruit From New Zealand; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-614-801]

Fresh Kiwifruit From New Zealand; Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 3, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand. On

December 27, 1996, the Department published amended final results of

this review. The review covers one exporter, the New Zealand Kiwifruit

Marketing Board (NZKMB), and the period from June 1, 1994, through May

31, 1995. Based on the correction of ministerial errors made with

respect to the amended final results of December 27, 1996, we are

amending the final results a second time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul M. Stolz or Thomas F. Futtner, Import Administration,

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

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202) 482-4474 or 482-3814, respectively.

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 Departments regulations are to 19 CFR

part 353 (1997).

Background

On September 3, 1996, the Department published the final results

(61 FR 46438) of its administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on fresh kiwifruit from New Zealand (57 FR 23203 (June 2, 1992)).

On December 27, 1996 the Department published amended final results of

this review. The review covered one exporter, the NZKMB. The Department

has now amended the final results of this administrative review a

second time in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by the order under review is fresh kiwifruit.

Processed kiwifruit, including fruit jams, jellies, pastes, purees,

mineral waters, or juices made from or containing kiwifruit, are not

covered under the scope of the order. The subject merchandise is

currently classifiable under subheading 0810.90.20 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS number is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope

of this review is dispositive.

Amended Final Results

After publication of our amended final results, we received timely

allegations of ministerial errors from the respondent, NZKMB, and the

petitioner, the California Kiwifruit Commission.

Allegation 1: NZKMB alleges that the Department failed to properly

initialize the variable for home market pallet expenses, PALEXPH, in

the computer program. The petitioner agrees with NZKMB's allegation.

The Department agrees with both respondent and petitioner and has

adjusted the computer program to properly initialize the variable.

Allegation 2: NZKMB alleges that the Department incorrectly added

imputed credit and inventory carrying costs into the computation of

constructed value (CV). Since these costs are already included in CV,

as elements of selling, general and administrative expenses, respondent

asserts that adding them would result in double-counting. We agree and

have revised the program accordingly.

Allegation 3: NZKMB argues that imputed credit expenses should be

deducted from CV and inventory carrying costs should be deducted up to

the CEP offset cap. We agree regarding the deduction of credit and

inventory carrying costs and have revised the program accordingly.

Allegation 4: NZKMB alleges that the Department treated the sum of

the cost of manufacturing (COM) and G&A as the COM, and then double-

counted G&A by adding it again in the calculation of COP. We agree and

have corrected the computer program as appropriate.

Allegation 5: NZKMB alleges that the Department converted normal

value for price-to-price comparisons into U.S. dollars by erroneously

multiplying, instead of dividing, the NV by the exchange rate, We agree

and have corrected the computer program as appropriate.

Allegation 6: Petitioner alleges that the Department's program

applies the New Zealand rate of exchange twice to the United States

packing cost used to create the variable ``FUPDOL''. We agree and have

corrected the program as appropriate.

For a description of allegations we did not agree were clerical

errors, see the memorandum from Tom Futtner, Program Manager, to Holly

Kuga, Senior Office Director, dated July 25, 1997.

Upon correction of the error described above as allegation 1, the

Department has determined that all home market sales were below the

cost of production, thus requiring the calculation of constructed

value. Section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act states that in the absence of

above cost sales, selling expenses and profit shall be based on (i)

expenses and profit of the respondent's other products, or (ii) the

expenses and profit of other producers subject to the antidumping

investigation or review, or (iii) any other reasonable method. The

first two alternatives and not available in this case, since NZKMB

sells no other products and since there are no other New Zealand

exporters subject to this review. Therefore we must rely on ``other

reasonable'' methods. In this case, since NZKMB earned no profits on

home market sales and we have no other information on the record with

respect to profit earned in the home market, as facts available we used

the profits

[[Page 47441]]

realized at the grower level. In this instance, we used the average

profit of the twenty sampled growers as the profit figure in our margin

calculations. With respect to selling expenses, we have used the

selling expenses associated with the home market sales. See Final

Results of Administrative Review, Ferrosilicon from Brazil, (61 FR

59407), dated November 22, 1996.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors, we have

determined the following margin exists for the period June 1, 1994,

through May 31, 1995:

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

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

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

New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board................ 0.00

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

The Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and NV

may vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions concerning the respondent 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 these

final results of administrative review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm

will be 0.00 percent; and (2) the cash deposit rate for merchandise

exported by all other manufacturers and exporters will be the ``all

others'' rate of 98.60 percent established in the less-than-fair-value

investigation; in accordance with the Department practice. See Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal

Mogul Corporation, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993).

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as the 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 of

return/destruction of APO materials 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: August 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-23851 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M