Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-301-602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results and

Partial Rescission 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 from interested parties, the

Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from

Colombia for the period March 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

the normal value (NV) by various companies subject to this review. If

these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this

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

antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price

(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. We invite interested

parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement

of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The deadlines

for submission of argument are listed at the end of this notice. All

memoranda referred to in this notice can be found in the public reading

room, located in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main

Department of Commerce building.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Showers or Roy A. Malmrose,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-

3217 or (202) 482-5414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 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 March 4, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register

a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the

antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia. See

61 FR 8238. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), on April 22, 1996, we

initiated an administrative review of this order. See 61 FR 17685. On

August 21, 1996, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and

19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we extended the deadline for these preliminary

results until March 31, 1997. See 61 FR 43229. From February 17 through

March 1, 1997, we verified the responses of seven respondents. The

Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with

section 751 of the Act.

Imports covered by this review 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.

The period of review is March 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.

In this administrative review, 473 companies were either named in

the initiation notice or were affiliated with a company named in the

initiation notice. We have separated these companies into the following

categories: companies providing full responses (selected and non-

selected); companies claiming they had no shipments during the POR;

companies claiming they were bankrupt without responding further;

companies that did not respond at all or that submitted a response

after the deadline for submission of questionnaire responses; companies

to which we were unable to deliver the questionnaire (i.e., unlocatable

companies); and companies for which we are rescinding this review.

Respondent Selection

Unlike past administrative reviews of this order, this one is being

conducted under statutorily mandated deadlines. On September 20, 1996,

the Department issued a memorandum proposing to limit the number of

exporters and producers examined in this review. The memorandum also

proposed specific sampling methodologies. The Department invited

interested parties to comment on both the proposal to limit the number

of exporters and producers and the specific sampling methodologies

described in the memorandum. Comments were submitted by the Floral

Trade Council, the Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores

(``Asocolflores''), the HOSA Group, and the Caicedo Group. After

considering these comments, on November 21, 1996, the Department

decided to limit the number of respondents examined.

Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides the Department with the

authority to determine margins by limiting its examination to a

statistically valid sample of exporters or the largest volume of the

subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. This subparagraph

is formulated as an exception to the general rule that each company for

which a review is requested will be individually examined and receive a

calculated margin. Since the resources available to the Department are

limited, we found it administrably necessary to restrict the number of

respondents selected for examination in order to conduct thorough and

accurate analyses of responses to our questionnaires and other relevant

issues within the statutory deadlines. Restricting the number of

respondents for examination is consistent with other past cases

involving large numbers of potential respondents, statutory deadlines

and limited resources. See, for example, Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1344 (January

19, 1996) and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of

China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10, 1996).

Therefore, given the large number of producers and/or exporters

involved in the review and the Department's limited resources, the

Department limited its examination to the 13 groups of exporters and

producers accounting for the largest volume of flowers, in accordance

with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. These exporters accounted for

approximately 50 percent by volume of the exports made during the POR

by the companies and groups of companies that responded to our

questionnaire. These 13 respondents are the Agrodex Group

(``Agrodex''); Caicedo Group (``Caicedo''); Claveles Colombianos

[[Page 16773]]

Group (``Clavecol''); Cultivos Miramonte Group (``Cultivos

Miramonte''); Floraterra Group (``Floraterra''); Flores Colon, Ltda

(``Flores Colon''); Florex Group (``Florex''); Guacatay Group

(``Guacatay''); HOSA Group (``HOSA''); Maxima Farms Group (``Maxima

Farms''); Queens Flowers Group (``Queens''); Tinzuque Group

(``Tinzuque''); and Tuchany Group (``Tuchany''). For further discussion

on the issues of limiting the number of respondents and the selection

of respondents, see the Memorandum from Team to Barbara R. Stafford,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated November 21,

1996.

Affiliated Companies

During the course of this review, we examined closely the

relationships between the selected respondents and other producers/

exporters listed in our notice of initiation. Based on this

examination, we concluded that one of Guacatay's importers was

affiliated. Guacatay complied with our request to report sales by this

importer as CEP sales.

In addition to our examination, several respondents filed responses

on behalf of affiliated companies which were either not listed in the

initiation notice, or were listed as independent companies in the

initiation notice. On May 10, 1996, Asocolflores informed us that

``Caico'' was the same as the Caicedo Group. Therefore, while CAICO,

the Caico Group and the Caicedo Group, are listed separately in our

initiation notice, we are treating them as part of the same group. On

October 1, 1996, respondent HOSA identified the five companies included

in the HOSA Group. One of these companies, Innovacion Andina S.A., had

been listed separately in our initiation. We are now listing it solely

under the HOSA Group. In addition, both Agrodex and Queens submitted

responses on behalf of more companies than were named in the initiation

notice. We have included those companies in their respective groups.

With respect to the respondents other than the 13 selected

respondents, we received the following information on affiliation. On

May 10, 1996, respondents informed us that ``Agromonte Ltda'' was the

same company as ``Flores Agromonte.'' Therefore, we have listed this

company under its appropriate name, Flores Agromonte. In our

initiation, we listed Floricola la Ramada Ltda. twice, once under the

Santa Rosa Group and once by itself. Based on information received by

respondents on July 19, 1996, we have now listed it only one time,

under the Santa Rosa Group. Also, Agricola Benilda Ltda was mentioned

twice in our initiation. It now appears only under the Aga Group. On

August 5, 1996, Asocolflores informed us that Flores la Union/Santana

is actually simply ``Santana'' and is a farm of Flores la Union Gomez

Arago & Cia. Therefore, we are treating Santana as part of the Flores

la Union Gomez Arago & Cia Group. Finally, the Bojaca Group, Floralex

Group, Funza Group and Soagro Group responded on behalf of more

affiliated companies than were named in the initiation notice. The

companies affiliated with these groups are now listed as reported by

the respondents.

Non-Selected Respondents

This is the first administrative review of any antidumping order in

which the Department reviewed only the largest exporters, pursuant to

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. When, as in this case, only the largest

exporters are selected and each given an individually calculated

margin, there remain a number of exporters for whom an individual

margin cannot be calculated. The statute is silent on how the margins

should be calculated for these remaining non-selected respondents.

In this ninth review, we face the unusual situation of having

requested full responses from all firms prior to our decision to review

only the largest. We have assigned the non-selected, cooperative

respondents a weighted-average margin based on the calculated margins

of selected respondents, excluding any de minimis margins and margins

based on facts available. Given the unique circumstances of this case,

using the weighted-average margin is most consistent with the general

structure of the statute. Further, although this is clearly not a

nonmarket economy case, we have faced analogous situations in certain

NME investigations where we were unable to examine all of the

respondents. The methodology employed here is the same as that which we

have used in those NME investigations. See, e.g., Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's

Republic of China, 60 FR 14725 (March 20, 1995) and Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake

Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 53190 (October 10,

1996). The firms in question are listed under ``Non-Selected

Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section below.

No Shipments

We received responses from 64 firms indicating that they did not

ship during the POR. We reviewed information from Customs listing all

companies who had entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Since

40 of the companies that stated they had no shipments also did not

appear on Customs data as having entries during the POR, we

preliminarily determine that they did not ship during the POR.

Consistent with our practice in previous reviews of this order, for

those companies that did not ship during the POR which had previously

been reviewed or investigated, their cash deposit rate will continue to

be the company-specific rate published for the most recently reviewed

period. For those companies that did not ship during the POR and which

had not been previously reviewed or investigated, their cash deposit

rate will be the ``all-others'' rate. These 40 firms are listed under

``No Shipments'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section below.

For those 24 companies which stated that they had not shipped during

the POR, but which did appear on the Customs data as having entries

during the POR, we preliminarily determine that these companies have

failed to cooperate with the proceeding. Therefore, we are applying an

adverse facts available rate of 76.60 percent to these companies. We

will, however, seek further information from these respondents and from

Customs to determine whether these entries during the POR actually

related to sales outside of the POR. These 24 companies are included

under ``Non-Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section

below.

Unlocatable Companies

We initiated reviews for 116 firms which could not be located in

spite of our requests for assistance from such diverse sources as the

Floral Trade Council (``FTC''), Asocolflores, the American Embassy in

Bogota, and the U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, we were unable to

conduct administrative reviews for these firms. Consistent with our

practice in past administrative reviews of this order, we will assess

duties on these firms in the following manner. For those unlocatable

companies that were examined in a previous review, we will assess

duties based on their company-specific rate from the most recent

review. If we have not previously conducted a review of an unlocatable

company, duties equal to the ``all others'' rate of 3.53 percent from

the Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV) investigation will be assessed. The

firms

[[Page 16774]]

in question are listed under ``Unlocatable'' in the Preliminary Results

of Review section below.

Rescissions

Subsequent to the publication of our initiation notice, we received

timely withdrawals of review requests from Agricola La Montana and My

Flowers. Because there were no other requests for review for these

companies from any other interested parties, we are rescinding this

review with respect to these two companies in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1). In addition, we received information on the record that

Flower Factory, Hill Crest Gardens, Sunbelt Florals, and Eldorado

Trading Corp were importers and not producers/exporters. Consequently,

we are terminating the review with respect to these four firms.

Request To Preserve Revocation Eligibility

Under the current regulations, as amended by the interim

regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995, the

Department may revoke an order in part if: (1) One or more producers or

resellers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less

than foreign market value for a period of at least three consecutive

years; (2) it is not likely that those persons will in the future sell

the merchandise at less than foreign market value; and (3) the

producers or resellers agree in writing to their immediate

reinstatement in the order if the Department determines, subsequent to

their revocation, that they have sold subject merchandise at less than

foreign market value. See 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2). Since all requests for

review in the eighth review period were withdrawn, the ninth review can

only be the first of any three consecutive years. On November 27, 1996,

seven producers/exporters of subject merchandise, who were not among

the 13 selected, requested that they be included in this review so as

to preserve their eligibility for possible revocation in the eleventh

review.

The statute, at section 751(d)(1), states that Commerce ``may

revoke, in whole or in part, a countervailing or antidumping duty

order,'' (emphasis added). Therefore, the Department is under no

obligation to provide for the possibility of revocation to these or any

companies under the order. However, we recognize that the request by

the seven respondents to preserve their revocation eligibility presents

certain fundamental equity considerations. While we are unable to

include these seven producers/exporters in this review, we intend to

address their concerns. Therefore, we are considering several options

concerning the appropriate way to allow for the possibility of future

partial revocations in this order, while taking into account the

Department's limited resources and the requirement that a company be

verified in order to be revoked. Among others, we are considering the

following three options. First, we could allow companies to make the

claim, retrospectively, that they have not dumped for the past three

years in the form of a ``changed circumstances'' review in the eleventh

review (i.e., the first review in which revocations will be possible

under this order). Second, we could allow a group of companies to claim

prospectively that they will have zero or de minimis margins for the

next three years and examine a random sample of each such group in each

of the next reviews (i.e., beginning in the tenth review). Finally, we

could allow a group of companies to claim prospectively that they will

have zero or de minimis margins for the next three years and examine

certain elements of each respondent's data (rather than a random sample

of all respondents). We invite parties to comment on these options, as

well as any others that take into account the above considerations. For

further discussion on this issue, see Memorandum from Team to Robert S.

LaRussa, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated

February 21, 1997.

Verification

Section 782(i) of the Act requires the Department to verify all

information relied upon in making a final determination in a review

under section 751(a), if no verification was made during the two

immediately preceding reviews. Therefore, we verified only those

companies that were not verified in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61

FR 42833 (August 19, 1996) (``Flowers 1991-94''). As provided in

section 782(i)(3)(B) of the Act, we verified information provided by

the following respondents, using standard verification procedures,

including on-site examination of relevant sales and financial records,

and selection of original documentation containing relevant

information: Caicedo, Clavecol, Floraterra, Maxima Farms, Flores Colon,

Queens, and Tuchany.

Duty Absorption

On March 29, 1996, the petitioner requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed by respondents

during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the

Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative review

initiated two or four years after publication of the order, whether

antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter

subject to the order, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United

States through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer

or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) was added to the Act by the URAA. The

Department's interim regulations do not address this provision of the

Act.

For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the

Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section

351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping regulations

provides that the Department will make a duty absorption determination,

if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998.

See 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 1996). The preamble to the proposed

antidumping regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be

considered initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998

will be considered initiated in the fourth year. Id. at 7308, 7317.

Although these proposed antidumping regulations are not yet binding

upon the Department, they do constitute a public statement of how the

Department expects to proceed in construing section 751(a)(4) of the

amended statute. This approach assures that interested parties will

have the opportunity to request a duty absorption determination on

entries for which the second and fourth years following an order have

already passed, prior to the time for sunset review of the order under

section 751(c). Because the order on certain fresh cut flowers from

Colombia has been in effect since 1986, this is a transition order.

Consequently, based on the policy stated above, it is appropriate for

the Department to examine duty absorption in this ninth review, which

was initiated in 1996.

The statute, at section 751(a)(4), provides that duty absorption

may occur if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States

through an affiliated importer. Of the selected respondents, the

following have affiliated importers: Agrodex, Caicedo, Clavecol,

Cultivos Miramonte, Floraterra, Florex, Guacatay, HOSA, Maxima Farms,

Queens and Tuchany. Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that

there are dumping margins for the following companies with respect to

the percentages of their U.S. sales by quantity indicated below:

[[Page 16775]]

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

Name of company Percentage of U.S. affiliated importer sales with margin

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

Agrodex................................... 13.71

Caicedo................................... 100

Clavecol.................................. 19.66

Cultivos Miramonte........................ 24.71

Floraterra................................ 24.32

Florex.................................... 13.06

Guacatay.................................. 27.98

HOSA...................................... 21.73

Maxima Farms.............................. 31.37

Queens.................................... 18.97

Tuchany................................... 22.33

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

In the case of Caicedo, we are unable to calculate a margin based

on its response and have therefore determined its dumping margin

entirely on the basis of facts available. In such cases, we assume duty

absorption on all sales. With respect to those companies (with

affiliated importers) whose margins are not determined based on facts

available, we presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales

which were dumped, unless there is evidence (e.g., an agreement between

the affiliated importer and the unaffiliated purchaser) that the

unaffiliated purchasers in the United States will pay the full duty

ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. Although in this case

certain companies have provided invoices which separately list an

amount for estimated antidumping duties which they are charging their

unaffiliated purchasers, none of these companies has presented evidence

of agreements with unaffiliated purchasers to pay ultimately assessed

antidumping duties. Under these circumstances, therefore, we

preliminarily find that the antidumping duties have been absorbed by

the above-listed firms on the percentage of U.S. sales indicated.

Use of Facts Available

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act states that if necessary information

is not available on the record, the Department ``shall, subject to

section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this title.'' Section 782(e) of the Act

provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information

that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the

determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements

established by the Department if: (1) The information is submitted by

the deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be

verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve

as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the

interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its

ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements

established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5)

the information can be used without undue difficulties. Accordingly, in

using the facts available, the Department may disregard information

submitted by a respondent if any of the five criteria has not been met.

In circumstances where the Department determines that the use of

facts available is appropriate, the Department must then determine

whether an adverse inference is warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, where the Department ``finds that an interested party

has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,'' the Department ``may use an

inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting

from among the facts otherwise available.''

For purposes of this review, certain companies received the

Department's initial questionnaire, but either failed to respond

entirely or responded after the deadline for submission without

providing an explanation. Consequently, we must apply facts available.

Further, as we determine that their failure to respond either entirely

or in a timely fashion constitutes a failure to cooperate by not acting

to the best of their ability, we will apply an adverse inference in

selecting from the facts otherwise available. For all these companies,

we have applied as adverse facts available the highest rate for any

company from this or any prior segment of this proceeding. This rate is

76.60 percent. The companies in question are listed under ``Non-

Respondents'' in the Preliminary Results of Review section below.

We are also applying an adverse facts available rate to exports

made by the Oro Verde Group, consisting of Inversiones Miraflores S.A.

and Inversiones Oro Verde S.A. The group responded to our original

questionnaire only by stating that it did have small shipments during

the POR and that it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Our supplemental

questionnaire was returned as undeliverable. We find that this group

did not fully respond to our questionnaire. Therefore, consistent with

our treatment of bankrupt companies in Flowers 1991-94 and our

preliminary determination that the company did not cooperate to the

best of its ability, we are applying to the Oro Verde Group a rate of

7.85 percent which is the higher of the highest rate ever applied to

the group, or the highest rate calculated for any other company in this

review. See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated March 7, 1997.

Finally, we are applying an adverse facts available rate to one

selected respondent, Caicedo. Although Caicedo provided information we

requested which was necessary for our analysis, the majority of the

information could not be verified as required by section 782(i) of the

Act. Caicedo was not adequately prepared for our verification of its

response, although it had received the verification outline well in

advance of the verification. While certain of the preselected sales

were tied to company records, the majority of other items on the sales

verification agenda did not. In collecting information on certain items

requested, the company's ``support documentation'' did not tie to

either the response or the company's internal records. Notably, Caicedo

was unable to produce grower's reports (the main source document for

reporting sales information) for several of the customers we chose to

review. In attempting to verify its response we learned that Caicedo

had incorrectly reported most of its sales data. For example,

classification of sales as EP or CEP had not been based on the type of

sales (i.e., fixed-price or consignment, as required by the

questionnaire), but on where the customer made payment (i.e., to its

related importer in Miami or to Caicedo in Bogota). In addition,

Caicedo did not report the date of sale appropriately, using the date

that payment was

[[Page 16776]]

received instead of the date the invoice was issued. The company also

mis-reported international freight, brokerage and handling, and days

outstanding for numerous customers. Furthermore, while the verification

of Caicedo's cost data was more successful, we learned of several

errors in its reporting of costs. The most significant error, Caicedo's

failure to include an inflation adjustment to its amortized costs,

prevents us from calculating a normal value for Caicedo because of lack

of information on the record.

Despite a question posed in a supplemental questionnaire concerning

confusing or contradictory information on the classification of EP and

CEP sales, and a statement at the beginning of the Miami verification

that there seemed to be significant omissions in the field of

international freight, Caicedo did not correct the errors in its sales

response. The errors in the cost response were undetectable prior to

verification. Moreover, despite extensive efforts during verification,

neither the Department nor the company was able to correct the vast

majority of these errors.

Although information submitted by Caicedo's affiliated importer,

Southern Rainbow Corporation, was verified, we are unable to use it

because we find that the totality of information submitted by Caicedo

was so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

determining any margin for Caicedo. Therefore, in accordance with

section 782(e)(3) of the statute, we are declining to consider the

information submitted by Caicedo.

The Department has used facts available where a company has failed

verification despite our attempts to verify. See e.g., Final Results:

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et al., 62 FR 2081 (January 15, 1997) (``AFBs VI

''); Preliminary Results: Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 61 FR

65019 (December 10, 1996); Preliminary Results: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden, 61 FR 51898 (October 4, 1996).

Moreover, in AFBs VI, we concluded that a respondent did not act to the

best of its ability when it was an experienced respondent in reviews of

the order and when the questionnaire was not vague on the information

requested. We reasoned that, in these circumstances, the respondent

could reasonably be expected to know which types of essential data we

request in each review, and to be conversant with the form and manner

in which we require submission of the data. See 62 FR 2081, 2090.

Like the situation described in AFBs VI, Caicedo is a large,

sophisticated corporation that has participated in previous reviews of

this order. The questionnaire was explicit in its instructions on the

classification of EP and CEP customers, date of sale and amortization

of costs. Furthermore, the inflation adjustment to amortization has

been a standard element in previous reviews of this order and Caicedo

could reasonably be expected to know how to report its costs. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine that application of adverse facts

available is warranted as Caicedo failed to cooperate by acting to the

best of its ability. Consequently, we are assigning Caicedo a rate of

25.58 percent, the highest rate ever applied to Caicedo in any portion

of this proceeding. This rate was applied to Flores del Cauca (one of

the farms of Caicedo). Consistent with the logic articulated in AFBs

VI, we determine that this rate is sufficiently adverse to encourage

full cooperation in future segments of the proceeding by ensuring that

Caicedo does not benefit from its failure to cooperate fully (Statement

of Administrative Action (``SAA''), at 200).

Because the facts available information which we are using in this

review constitutes secondary information, we are required under section

776(c) of the Act to corroborate, to the extent practicable, the facts

available from independent sources reasonably at our disposal. The SAA

provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative

value. (SAA, at id.) To corroborate the secondary information, the

Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used. However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for

margins is administrative determinations and reviews. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department relies upon a calculated

dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding as facts

available, the Department can normally be satisfied that the

information has probative value and that it has complied with the

corroboration requirements of section 776(i) of the Act. See AFBs VI,

at 2087.

Fair Value Comparisons

Under the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections

below, we have included certain company-specific issues. For further

discussion of these issues, See Memorandum from Team to Richard W.

Moreland, Acting Deputy for Import Administration, dated March 12,

1997.

United States Price

Consistent with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act and Flowers 1991-94,

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.

For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b)

of the Act, as appropriate. CEP was used for consignment sales through

unaffiliated U.S. consignees and sales (consignment or otherwise) made

through affiliated importers.

We calculated EP based on the packed price, consisting of invoice

price plus certain additional revenue, e.g., box charges and

antidumping duties paid, (either f.o.b. Bogota, c.i.f. Miami or c.i.f.

Chicago) to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates, foreign

inland freight, international (air) freight, brokerage and handling,

U.S. customs fees, and return credits.

For sales made on consignment, CEP was calculated based on the

packed price consisting of invoice price plus certain additional

revenue, e.g., box charges and antidumping duties paid, charged by the

consignee. For sales made through affiliated parties, CEP was based on

the packed price, consisting of invoice price plus certain additional

revenue, e.g., box charges and antidumping duties paid, to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made adjustments to

these prices, where appropriate, for box charges, discounts and

rebates, foreign inland freight, international (air) freight, brokerage

and handling, U.S. customs fees, direct selling expenses (credit

expense and contributions to the Colombian Flower Council) relating to

commercial activity in the United States, return credits, royalties and

indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market that related to

commercial activity in the United States. Finally, consistent with our

practice in Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 6980 (February 6, 1995), we made

adjustments for either commissions paid to unrelated U.S. consignees or

the indirect U.S. selling expenses of related consignees.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, the price was further

reduced by an amount for profit to arrive at the CEP.

[[Page 16777]]

The CEP profit rate was calculated using the expenses incurred by the

responding companies on their sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States and of the like product in the home market (for those

companies that had home market sales) and the profit associated with

those sales.

Tuchany

We were unable to verify the interest rates on Tuchany's reported

short-term U.S. loans during the POR; therefore, we were unable to

verify Tuchany's reported U.S. interest rate. With the exception of

this item, the response filed by Tuchany was verified. For this reason,

in lieu of using the reported rate, we are using the rate which we

observed for most of Tuchany's loans.

Normal Value

Section 773 of the Act provides that the normal value (NV) of the

subject merchandise shall be (1) the price at which the foreign like

product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale)

for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial

quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent

practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or

constructed export price, (2) the price at which the foreign like

product is sold (or offered for sale) for consumption in a country

other than the exporting country or the United States (third country

sales), or (3) the constructed value of that merchandise.

Some companies in this review have sales in the home market of

export quality flowers exceeding five percent of sales to the U.S.

market, i.e., have a viable home market. However, consistent with our

practice in previous reviews of this order and based on information

provided by respondents, we have determined that these sales are not

within the ordinary course of trade. For a further discussion, see

Memorandum from Team to Barbara Stafford, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, dated January 13, 1997.

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act states that if the administering

authority determines that the normal value of the subject merchandise

cannot be determined using home market prices, then, notwithstanding

the possible use of third country prices, the normal value of the

subject merchandise may be the constructed value of that merchandise.

We received comments and factual information concerning this issue from

respondents on August 7, 1996, and from petitioner on October 23, 1996.

We have used constructed value as the basis of normal value since

the final results of the second antidumping duty administrative review

of Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 55 FR 20491 (May 17, 1990).

We based this determination on three factors: (1) the negative

correlation of prices in third country markets to prices in the United

States because of greater volatility and the sporadic nature of the

U.S. market and differing peak price periods (holidays); (2) Colombian

producers' relative lack of access to European markets; and (3) the

perishability of the merchandise.

In Flowers 1991-94, we stated that our analysis of the third

country markets was sufficient for us to reject the use of third

country prices, even though we had not collected third country prices

from respondents. A significant factor in the analysis was the Botero

study. The Botero study relied upon in the Flowers 1991-94 reviews

demonstrated that third country prices were not reliable for purposes

of foreign market value and was based upon data from the period 1982-

1989. The study has since been updated to cover the period 1989 through

1995, which covers a portion of the POR. Based on the new Botero study,

we find that differences in the demand patterns between the markets

continue to exist and that seasonal demand and price cycles between the

markets are statistically different.

Relying on the recent economic data submitted by respondents and

consistent with the Department's practice in prior segments of this

proceeding, we have determined that a particular market situation

prevents a proper comparison between third country sales and U.S. sales

within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) of the Act.

Therefore, we have continued to use CV as the basis for normal value.

See Memorandum from Team to Barbara R. Stafford, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration, dated November 21, 1996.

We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We

included the cost of materials and fabrication, and the selling,

general and administrative expenses reported by respondents. The per-

unit constructed value was calculated by dividing the annual CV in

pesos by the quantity of export quality flowers sold by the grower/

exporter. We converted the peso per stem CV based on the date of the

U.S. sale, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. We consider

non-export quality flowers (culls) that are produced in conjunction

with export quality flowers to be by-products. Therefore, revenue from

the sales of culls was offset against the cost of producing the export

quality flowers.

We based selling, general and administrative expenses on the

amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like product for consumption in the

home market. Where respondents had no home market sales, we used the

general and administrative expenses associated with their sales to all

other markets. Regarding selling expenses, all respondents reporting

sales of export quality flowers in the home market stated they had no

selling expenses in that market. Therefore, as facts otherwise

available, we did not include selling expenses for those respondents

that had no home market sales.

Regarding profit, we verified that for those producers/exporters

with home market sales of culls and/or export quality flowers, those

sales were outside the ordinary course of trade because they were made

at below cost prices. Consequently, we are unable to apply the methods

specified in section 773(e)(2)(A) or 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for

calculating profit. Also, none of the respondents realized a profit on

merchandise in the same general category as flowers produced for sale

in Colombia. Therefore, we are not able to apply the profit methodology

described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i).

Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) permits the Department to use ``any other

reasonable method'' to compute an amount for profit, provided that the

amount ``may not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or

producers * * * in connection with the sale, for consumption in the

foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of

products as the subject merchandise.'' Although we have sought

information on the profits earned in Colombia by producers of

merchandise that might be considered in the same general category of

products as flowers in order to compute the ``profit cap'' described in

773(e)(2)(B)(iii), we have not been able to find any such producers.

Therefore, we do not have a profit cap.

The SAA, at 171, anticipates this situation and directs that where

Commerce cannot determine profit under the alternative methods

described in sections 773(e)(2)(B)(i) and 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) or calculate

a profit cap, the Department may apply 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) as the basis

of facts available. The SAA further states that constructed value

``must include an amount * * * for profit,'' (emphasis added). SAA, at

169. We interpret this statement, particularly because of the

[[Page 16778]]

use of the words ``must'' and ``amount'' to mean that the profit figure

used cannot be zero and must be positive. Therefore, as facts

available, in this case we have developed a profit figure from the

financial statements of a Colombian producer of agricultural and

processed agricultural goods. We have preliminarily determined that it

is appropriate to use the profit rate for that company, 5.00 percent of

cost of production, for all respondents.

We added U.S. packing to constructed value. In addition, for EP

sales, we made circumstance of sale adjustments for direct expenses,

where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the

Act.

Clavecol

Clavecol stated that it experienced high water subsoil levels at

one of its farms and requested that the Department adjust its costs for

this water damage. While we do not feel it is appropriate to adjust

total costs, we do agree that the severe water damage resulted in an

unusual decrease in productivity. Therefore, we have normalized the

production level to make an appropriate adjustment for this loss.

Normalization of the production levels when severe circumstances of

nature result in unusual losses of crop is consistent with the

Department's past practice. See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Ecuador, 60 FR 7019, 7038

(February 6, 1995).

Flores Colon

In accordance with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department

will normally calculate costs on the basis of records kept by the

exporter or producer of the merchandise, ``if such records are kept in

accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the

exporting country (or the producing country, where appropriate) and

reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of

the merchandise.'' Flores Colon amortized its capitalized expenses over

a period that is longer than the expected useful lives of the

capitalized assets. This method of accounting results in assigning

costs which should be recognized during the POR to future periods.

Thus, the company's accounting methodology regarding capitalized

expenses does not appropriately match those expenses with income

generated from their use and, hence, does not reasonably reflect the

costs associated with the production of the merchandise under review.

Based on information gathered at verification, we have estimated

the various types and corresponding amounts of expenses capitalized by

Flores Colon from 1993 through 1995. We then amortized each expense

category (adjusted for inflation) over a period consistent with the

asset's expected useful life (e.g., two years for cuttings). This

approach attempts to correct the distortion caused by the manner in

which Flores Colon maintains its accounting records without penalizing

the company for its unique accounting system.

HOSA

In the company's original questionnaire response, HOSA calculated

its per unit constructed value using sales of both export and national

quality flowers. We asked HOSA to recalculate its constructed value

deriving per unit costs based solely on sales of export quality

flowers, in accordance with our long standing practice in these

reviews. While HOSA complied with the Department's request, it objected

strongly to this methodology.

HOSA and Asocolflores raised the same objections in Flowers 1991-

94. We disagreed on the grounds that there was no change in the factual

situation which would significantly alter our established treatment of

cull, or national-quality, flowers. Based on the information provided

in the current review, we are continuing to treat all home market sales

of non-export quality flowers as culls, regardless of how they are

designated under HOSA's internal grading system. Therefore, we are

using the most recent data submitted by HOSA in which CV is calculated

on the basis of sales of export quality flowers.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency

conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates

of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Section 773 A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars,

unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. In accordance with the

Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that a

fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a

benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling

average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine that

a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of EP and CEP with NV, we

preliminarily determine that there are margins in the amounts listed

below for the period March 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.

Selected Respondents

The following 13 groups of firms (composed of 97 companies) were

selected as respondents and received individual reviews, as indicated

below:

Agrodex Group....................................... 3.06 percent.

Agricola de las Mercedes

Agricola el Retiro Ltda.

Agrodex Ltda.

Degaflores Ltda.

Flores Camino Real Ltda.

Flores Cuatro Esquinas Ltda.

Flores de la Comuna Ltda.

Flores de las Mercedes

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 Trentino Ltda.

Flores la Conejera Ltda.

Flores Manare Ltda.

Florlinda Ltda.

Horticola el Triunfo

Horticola Montecarlo Ltda.

Caicedo Group....................................... 25.58 percent.

Agro Bosque S.A.

Andalucia S.A.

Aranjuez S.A.

Columbiano S.A. ``CAICO''

Caico

Exportaciones Bochica S.A.

Floral Ltda.

Flores del Cauca

Inversiones Targa Ltda.

Productos el Zorro

Via el Rosal

Claveles Colombianos Group.......................... 1.13 percent.

[[Page 16779]]

Claveles Colombianos Ltda.

Elegant Flowers Ltda.

Fantasia Flowers Ltda.

Splendid Flowers Ltda.

Sun Flowers Ltda.

Cultivos Miramonte Group............................ 2.30 percent.

Cultivos Miramonte S.A.

Flores Mocari S.A.

Floraterra Group.................................... 7.85 percent.

Exporosas

Floraterra S.A.

Flores Casablanca S.A.

Flores San Mateo S.A.

Siete Flores S.A.

Flores Colon Ltda................................... 4.46 percent.

Florex Group........................................ 1.07 percent.

Agricola Guacari S.A.

Agricola el Castillo

Flores San Joaquin

Flores Altamira S.A.

Flores de Exportacion S.A.

Guacatay Group...................................... 3.23 percent.

Agricola Cunday

Agricola Guacatay S.A.

Jardines Bacata Ltda.

Hosa Group.......................................... 3.02 percent.

Horticultura de la Sabana S.A.

HOSA Ltda.

Innovacion Andina S.A.

Minispray S.A.

Prohosa Ltda.

Maxima Farms Group.................................. 4.41 percent.

Agricola los Arboles S.A.

Colombian D.C. Flowers

Polo Flowers

Rainbow Flowers

Maxima Farms Inc.

Queens Flowers Group................................ 2.15 percent.

Agroindustrial del Rio Frio

Cultivos General Ltda.

Flora Nova

Flora Atlas Ltda.

Flores Calima S.A.

Flores Canelon Ltda.

Flores de Bojaca

Flores del Cacique

Flores del Hato

Flores el Aljibe Ltda.

Flores el Cipres

Flores El Pino Ltda.

Flores El Roble S.A.

Flores el Tandil

Flores la Mana

Flores las Acacias Ltda.

Flores la Valvanera Ltda.

Flores Jayvana

Flores Ubate Ltda.

Jardines de Chia Ltda.

Jardines Fredonia Ltda.

Jardines Piracanta

M.G. Consultores Ltda.

Mountain Roses

Queens Flowers de Colombia Ltda.

Quality Flowers S.A.

Florval S.A. (Floval)

Jardines des Rosal

Tinzuque Group...................................... 0.99 percent.

Tinzuque Ltda.

Catu S.A.

Tuchany Group....................................... 6.37 percent.

Tuchany S.A.

Flores Sibate

Flores Tikaya

Flores Munya

Non-Selected Respondents

The following 144 companies (including 22 groups of companies) were

not selected as respondents and will receive a rate of 2.93 percent:

Aga Group

Agricola la Celestina

Agricola la Maria

Agricola Benilda Ltda.

Agricola Acevedo Ltda.

Agricola Arenales Ltda.

Agricola Bonanza Ltda.

Agricola Circasia Ltda.

Agricola el Cactus S.A.

Agricola el Mortino Ltda.

Agricola el Redil Ltda.

Agricola la Corsaria Ltda.

Agricola Las Cuadras Group

Agricola las Cuadras Ltda.

Flores de Hacaritama

Agricola Megaflor Ltda.

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.

Celia Flowers

Passion Flowers

Primo Flowers

Temptation Flowers

Andes Group

Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.

Flores de los Andes Ltda.

Flores Horizonte Ltda.

Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.

Aspen Gardens Ltda.

Astro Ltda.

Cantarrana Group

Cantarrana Ltda.

Agricola los Venados Ltda.

Cigarral Group

Flores Cigarral

Flores Tayrona

Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.

Colibri Flowers Ltda.

Combiflor

Cultiflores Ltda.

Cultivos Medellin Ltda.

Cultivos Tahami Ltda.

Daflor Ltda.

El Antelio S.A.

Envy Farms Group

Envy Farms

Flores Marandua Ltda.

Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A. (formerly Flores de Cajibio Ltda.)

Farm Fresh Flowers Group

Agricola de la Fontana

Flores de Hunza

Flores Tibati

Inversiones Cubivan

Floralex Ltda.

Floralex Ltda.

Flores el Puente Ltda.

Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.

Floreales Group

Floreales Ltda.

Kimbaya

Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.

Flores Agromonte

Flores Ainsuca Ltda.

Flores Aurora Ltda.

Flores Carmel S.A.

Flores Comercial Bellavista Ltda.

Flores de Aposentos Ltda.

Flores de la Hacienda

Flores de la Montana

Flores de la Sabana S.A.

Flores de la Vega Ltda.

Flores de la Vereda

Flores de Serrezuela S.A.

Flores de Suba Ltda.

Flores del Lago Ltda.

Flores del Rio Group

Agricola Cardenal S.A.

Flores del Rio S.A.

Indigo S.A.

Flores de Oriente

Flores el Molino S.A.

Flores el Talle Ltda.

Flores el Zorro Ltda.

Flores Fusu

Flores Gioconda

Flores Juanambu Ltda.

Flores la Fragrancia

Flores las Caicas

Flores los Sauces

Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group

Santana

Flores Monserrate Ltda.

Flores Sagaro

Flores San Andres

Flores San Juan S.A.

Flores Santa Fe Ltda.

Flores Silvestres

Flores Tocarinda

Flores Tomine Ltda.

Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group

Flores Tropicales Ltda.

[[Page 16780]]

Happy Candy Ltda.

Mercedes Ltda.

Rosas Colombianos Ltda.

Floricola la Gaitana S.A.

Fresh Flowers

Funza Group

Flores Alborada

Flores de Funza S.A.

Flores del Bosque Ltda.

Flexport de Colombia

Grupo el Jardin

Agricola el Jardin Ltda.

La Marotte S.A.

Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.

Industrial Agricola

Ingro Ltda.

Inverpalmas

Inversiones Flores del Alto

Inversiones Morrosquillo

Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.

Inversiones Santa Rosa ARW Ltda.

Inversiones Supala S.A.

La Plazoleta Ltda.

Las Amalias Group

Las Amalias S.A.

Pompones Ltda.

La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.

Ramiflora Ltda.

Linda Colombiana Ltda.

Los Geranios Ltda.

Manjui Ltda.

Monteverde Ltda.

Natuflora Ltda./San Martin Bloque B

Papagayo Group

Agricola Papagayo Ltda.

Inversiones Calypso S.A.

Petalos de Colombia Ltda.

Pisochago Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Group

Flores la Colmena Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.

Inversiones la Serena

Agricola la Capilla

Santana Flowers Group

Santana Flowers Ltda.

Hacienda Curibital Ltda.

Inversiones Istra Ltda.

Santa Rosa Group

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola la Ramada Ltda.

Agropecuaria Sierra Loma

Senda Brava Ltda.

Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.

Soagro Group

Flores Aguaclara Ltda.

Flores del Monte Ltda.

Flores la Estancia

Jaramillo y Daza

Toto Flowers Group

Flores de Suesca S.A.

Toto Flowers

Uniflor Ltda.

Velez de Monchaux Group

Velez De Monchaux e Hijos y Cia S. en C.

Agroteusa

Victoria Flowers

Vuelven Ltda.

No Shipments

The following 40 companies responded that they had no shipments

during the POR. For those companies that were examined in a previous

review, we will assess duties based on their company-specific rate from

the most recent review. If we have not previously conducted a review of

a company, duties equal to the ``all others'' rate of 3.53 percent from

the Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV) investigation will be assessed.

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia

Agricola Guali S.A.

Agricola Yuldama

Agrorosas

Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.

De La Pava Guevara E Hijos Ltda.

Disagro

Expoflora Ltda.

Florandia Herrera Camacho & Cia.

Flores Acuarela S.A.

Flores Aguila

Flores Andinas Ltda.

Flores de Tenjo Ltda.

Flores del Campo Ltda.

Flores el Rosal Ltda.

Flores Galia Ltda.

Flores Gloria

Flores la Lucerna

Flores la Macarena

Flores Ramo Ltda.

Flores Sairam Ltda

Flores San Carlos

Flores Selectas

Flores Violette

Green Flowers

Inversiones Almer Ltda.

Inversiones Bucarelia

Inversiones Cota

Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.

Iturrama S.A.

Luisa Flowers

Otono (Agroindustrial Otono)

Planatas S.A.

Propagar Plantas S.A.

Rosaflor

Rosex Ltda.

Sansa Flowers

S.B. Talee de Colombia

Siempreviva

Tag Ltda

Unlocatable

The following 116 companies (including 2 groups) were unlocatable.

For those unlocatable companies that were examined in a previous

review, we will assess duties based on their company-specific rate from

the most recent review. If we have not previously conducted a review of

an unlocatable company, duties equal to the ``all others'' rate of 3.53

percent from the Less-Than-Fair-Value (LTFV) investigation will be

assessed.

Achalay

Agricola Altiplano

Agricola del Monte

Agricola la Siberia

Agrocaribu Ltda.

Agro de Narino

Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.

Agropecuaria la Marcela

Agropecuria Mauricio

Agrotabio Kent

Aguacarga

Alcala

Amoret

A.Q.

Carcol Ltda.

Classic

Coexflor

Color Explosion

Cota

Crest D'or

Crop S.A.

Cypress Valley

Degaflor

Del Monte

Del Tropico Ltda.

Diveragricola

El Milaro

El Timbul Ltda.

Exotic Flowers

Exotico

Ferson Trading

Flamingo Flowers

Flor Colombiana S.A.

Flores Ainsus

Flores Alcala Ltda.

Flores Calichana

Flores Corola

Flores de Iztari

Flores de Memecon/Corinto

Flores del Cielo Ltda.

Flores del Cortijo

Flores Gicro Group

Flores Gicro Ltda.

Flores de Colombia

Flores Hacienda Bejucol

Flores la Cabanuela

Flores la Pampa

Flores las Mesitas

Flores Montecarlo

Flores Palimana

Flores S.A.

Flores Saint Valentine

Flores San Andres

Flores Santana

Flores Sausalito

Flores Sindamanoi

Flores Tenerife Ltda

Floricola

Florisol

Florpacifico

Four Seasons

Fracolsa

F. Salazar

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

Hernando Monroy

Horticultura de la Sasan

Industrial Terwengel Ltda.

Inversiones Maya, Ltda.

Inversiones Silma

Inversiones Sima

Jardin de Carolina

Jardines Choconta

Jardines Darpu

Jardines Natalia Ltda.

Jardines Tocarema

J.M. Torres

Kingdom S.A.

La Colina

La Embairada

La Flores Ltda.

La Floresta

[[Page 16781]]

L.H.

Loma Linda

Loreana Flowers

Luisiana Farms

M. Alejandra

Mauricio Uribe

Merastec

Morcoto

Nasino

Olga Rincon

Piracania

Prismaflor

Reme Salamanca

Rosa Bella

Rosas y Jardines

Rose

San Valentine

Sarena

Select Pro

Shila

Solor Flores Ltda.

Starlight

Susca

Sweet Farms

The Beall Company

The Rose

Tomino

Villa Diana

Zipa Flowers

Non-Respondents

The following 68 companies (including 2 groups of companies) did

not respond to our questionnaire, or responded after the deadline date

without explanation. We will assess duties based on the highest rate

for any company from this or any prior segment of this proceeding. This

rate is 76.60 percent.

Agrex de Oriente

Agricola de Occident

Agroindustrial Madonna S.A.

Alstroflores Ltda.

Ancas Ltda.

Arboles Azules Ltda.

Becerra Castellanos y Cia.

Bojaca Group

Agricola Bojaca

Universal Flowers

Flores y Plantas Tropicales

Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.

Tropiflora

Cienfuegos Group

Cienfuegos Ltda.

Flores la Conchita

Clavelez

Consorcio Agroindustrial

Cultivos Guameru

Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.

Dynasty Roses Ltda.

Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen Tantau)

El Tambo

Euroflora

Exoticas

Exportadora

Flor y Color

Flora Intercontinental

Flores Abaco S.A.

Flores Bachue Ltda.

Flores Cerezangos

Flores Depina S.A.

Flores de Guasca

Flores de la Cuesta

Flores de la Maria

Flores del Tambo

Flores de la Parcelita

Flores el Lobo

Flores el Salitre Ltda.

Flores Flamingo Ltda.

Flores Juncalito Ltda.

Flores Monteverde

Flores Suasuque

Flores Tiba S.A.

Flores Urimaco

Florexpo

Florimex Colombia Ltda.

Flowers of the World/Rosa

Horticultura el Molino

Illusion Flowers

Industria Santa Clara

Inversiones Morcote

Inversiones Playa

Inversiones y Producciones Tecnicas

Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.

Jardines de America

Jardines de Timana

Karla Flowers

Las Flores

Laura Flowers

Pinar Guameru

Plantaciones Delta Ltda.

Rosales de Colombia Ltda.

Rosales de Suba Ltda.

Roselandia

San Ernesto

Santa Helena S.A.

Superflora Ltda.

Tropical Garden

Villa Cultivos Ltda.

Bankrupt Companies

The following group of companies is preliminarily determined to be

bankrupt and will be assessed at a rate of 7.85 percent.

Oro Verde Group

Inversiones Miraflores S.A.

Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing

not later than ten days after publication of this notice. Interested

parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these

preliminary results within 45 days of the date of publication of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may

be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case

briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two 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).

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. The Department

will issue final results of this review within 120 days of publication

of these preliminary results.

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

shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific

ad valorem antidumping duty rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to

calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all

entries of that particular importer made during the POR. (This method

for calculating the antidumping duty rate to be applied to each

importer is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping

duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory

NV and statutory EP or CEP, by the total statutory EP or CEP value of

the sales compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference

between EP or CEP and customs value for all merchandise examined during

the POR. Individual differences between EP or CEP and NV 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 Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates established in the final results of this

review; (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 LTFV investigation. These deposit

requirements, 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

[[Page 16782]]

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 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(c)(5).

Dated: March 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-8958 Filed 4-7-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P