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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-301-602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results and

Partial Termination 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 is conducting an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from Colombia for

the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

the normal value 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 or

constructed export price and the normal value (NV). For certain

companies who have requested that we rescind their requests for review,

we have granted that request.

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

[[Page 5355]]

Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa Jeong or Marian Wells, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade

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

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

1278 or 482-6309, 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 of Commerce's (the

Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR

part 353 (April 1997).

Background

On March 7, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register

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

respect to the antidumping duty order on certain fresh cut flowers from

Colombia. See 62 FR 10521. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), on

April 15, 1997, we initiated an administrative review of this order.

See 62 FR 18312. On October 15, 1997, in accordance with section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we extended the deadline for these preliminary

results until January 26, 1998. See 62 FR 53593. From December 8

through December 16, 1997, we verified the responses of one respondent,

the Caicedo Group. The Department has conducted this administrative

review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The scope of the order under review is 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). Although the HTS numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope

is dispositive. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1996 through

February 28, 1997.

Respondent Selection

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 exporters accounting for the

largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be

examined. This subparagraph is formulated as an exception to the

general requirement of the Act that each company for which a review is

requested will be individually examined and receive a calculated

margin. In this administrative review, 424 companies were either named

in the initiation notice or have been identified as being affiliated

with a company named in the initiation notice.

Because of the large number of companies involved in the review and

the limited resources available to the Department, we determined that

it was administratively necessary to restrict the number of respondents

selected for examination. This enabled us to conduct thorough and

accurate analyses of the responses to our questionnaires and other

relevant issues within the statutory deadlines. Restricting the number

of respondents for examination is consistent with the most recent

administrative review of this order and other past cases involving

large numbers of potential respondents, statutory deadlines and limited

resources. See, e.g., Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia:

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 16772 (April 8, 1997) (Flowers Ninth

Review); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1344 (January 19, 1996); 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 Department limited its examination in the present review to ten

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 over 30 percent by volume of the total exports

made during the POR to the United States from Colombia. Therefore,

respondents are the following ten parties: the Agrodex Group (Agrodex);

Caicedo Group (Caicedo); Claveles Colombianos Group (Clavecol);

Cultivos Miramonte Group (Cultivos Miramonte); Floraterra Group

(Floraterra); Florex Group (Florex); Guacatay Group (Guacatay); Queens

Flowers Group (Queens); Tinzuque Group (Tinzuque); and Tuchany Group

(Tuchany).

Non-Selected Respondents

Consistent with our practice in Flowers Ninth Review, we have

assigned the non-selected respondents a weighted-average margin based

on the calculated margins of selected respondents, excluding any de

minimis margins and margins based on facts available. The firms in

question are listed under ``Non-Selected Respondents'' in the

Preliminary Results of Review section below.

Terminations

On July 9, 1997, Flexport de Colombia & Cia S.A. (Flexport), Flores

Silvestres S.A. (Silvestres), Vegaflor, and Agropecuaria Sierra Loma

S.A. (Sierra Loma) withdrew their requests for review. Silvestres,

Sierra Loma, and Vegaflor were included in the Department's initiation

notice, but Flexport was inadvertently omitted from the initiation

notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5), we are terminating this

review with respect to Sierra Loma and Vegaflor because these companies

have filed timely requests for withdrawal and no other interested party

requested that they be reviewed. The cash deposit rates for Sierra Loma

and Vegaflor will continue to be the rates established for them in the

most recently completed final results. Because Flexport was

inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice and because no other

party requested a review of it, Flexport continues not to be included

in this review.

With respect to Silvestres, a request for review was received for

this company from the petitioner, the Floral Trade Council (FTC), on

March 3, 1997. Because of the FTC's request, we are not terminating our

review for this company.

Verification

All ten selected respondents were verified during the two

immediately preceding reviews. With the exception of one respondent,

Caicedo, the verifications of all selected respondents during the two

preceding reviews were successful. Therefore, Caicedo was the only

respondent verified in the present review. We verified information

provided by Caicedo using standard verification procedures, including

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

inspection of original documentation containing relevant information.

[[Page 5356]]

Use of Facts Available

Tuchany

In Flowers Ninth Review and during the POR of the present review,

the Tuchany group consisted of five growers. The group has since

dissolved with three of the companies now out of business and the

remaining two growers sold to different, unaffiliated owners. While

Tuchany was able to report sales data for all subject merchandise sold

by the group during the POR, it was not able to report the cost data

for the three growers no longer in existence. The questionnaire

response, therefore, contained only the costs of the two operational

farms.

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act requires, inter alia, that if

necessary information is not available on the record, the Department

shall use facts available (FA). Pursuant to the Act, if 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 adverse inference in selecting from among FA.

Based on the circumstances described by Tuchany, we find it

reasonable that the company would have difficulty compiling a complete

response. Tuchany indicated that it acted to the best of its ability to

locate the missing data and provided a detailed explanation of its

efforts. Tuchany explained that cost data, unlike sales records, were

maintained individually by each company and Tuchany's exhaustive

efforts at locating the former employees and accounting records of the

three defunct companies were futile. Accordingly, we believe the use of

adverse FA is not warranted in this case. Therefore, for purposes of

these preliminary results, we have used the cost data of the two

operational farms as FA for the margin calculations of the entire

Tuchany group, including the three companies dissolved shortly after

the POR. Where cost data for a flower type was unavailable because that

flower type was not grown by one of the growers for which cost

information was reported, we have applied to those sales, as FA, the

margin calculated for the flower type for which cost data was

available. See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, re: Constructed Value Data

for Tuchany Group Companies, dated January 26, 1998.

Fair Value Comparisons

United States Price

Consistent with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act and Flowers Ninth

Review, 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 (either f.o.b. Bogota, c.i.f. Miami or c.i.f. Chicago) plus

certain additional charges, e.g., box charges and antidumping duties

paid, 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

charges by the consignee, e.g., box charges and antidumping duty

deposits paid, to the unaffiliated purchaser. For sales made through

affiliated parties, CEP was based on the packed price, consisting of

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

antidumping duty deposits 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, freight charges incurred in the

United States, 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 Flowers Ninth Review, 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 for sales made

through affiliated parties. 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.

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 (home market (HM) sales), 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 so sold (or offered for sale) for consumption

in a country other than the exporting country or the United States

(third country (TC) sales) or (3) the constructed value of that

merchandise.

Some companies selected to respond in this review have sales in the

home market of export quality flowers exceeding 5 percent of the sales

to the U.S. market, i.e., have a viable home market. However, most

companies report no selling expenses on these sales and report them as

being incidental to their real purpose of business, the production and

exportation of flowers. They also state that export quality sales in

the home market are not planned on and generally are the result of

excess production. 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.

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

authority determines that the NV of the subject merchandise cannot be

determined using home market prices, then, notwithstanding the possible

use of third country prices, the NV of the subject merchandise may be

the constructed value (CV) of that merchandise. We received comments

and factual information concerning this issue from petitioners on

October 10, 1997 and January 9, 1998, and from respondents on December

15, 1997.

During this POR, certain companies selected to respond had viable

third country markets in Europe, Japan, and Canada. In prior reviews,

we have rejected using prices to Europe because the particular market

situation prevents a proper comparison. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers

from Colombia; Final

[[Page 5357]]

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62

FR 53287 at 53296 (October 14, 1997). Information submitted by

respondents shows that this market situation has continued. Therefore,

we are not basing NV on sales to European markets.

With respect to Japan and Canada, because these are not significant

export markets for Colombia, we have determined that, under the facts

of this case, prices to Canada or Japan are not representative within

the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act. As discussed

above in the section on ``Respondent Selection,'' we have limited our

analysis to a subset of the Colombian companies exporting to the United

States and we are basing the antidumping duty assessments for the non-

selected companies on the margins calculated for the selected

companies. Given this, we want to make our analysis as representative

as possible of the companies that were not selected to respond to our

questionnaire.

It is clear that neither Japan nor Canada is an important export

market for Colombian flower growers. Evidence on the record indicates

that Canada represents less than three percent of flower exports from

Colombia and Japan represents less than one percent of flower exports

from Colombia. Thus, to use sales to Japan or Canada as the basis of

our margin calculations for the few exporters that have viable markets

in Japan and Canada and then include those results in calculating the

rate used for assessing duties on the non-selected respondents would be

inappropriate for the vast majority of growers. Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we are basing NV on CV.

As an alternative method for ensuring that NV was representative, we

considered using third country sales for those companies with a viable

third country market, but excluding those companies from the

calculation of the assessment rate for non-selected exporters. However,

that methodology would substantially reduce the percentage of exports

during the POR that would form the basis of the assessment calculation

for non-selected exporters. Therefore, we determine that the use of CV

is a more reasonable means of establishing a representative NV for

purposes of calculating the assessment rates for all exporters under

review.

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. Consistent

with the methodology used in the Final Results of Flowers Ninth Review

to calculate a per-unit CV, see 62 FR 53287 (October 14, 1997), we

first converted each month's CVs from pesos to dollars using the

corresponding month's exchange rate. We totaled the monthly CV

expressed in dollars over the POR and divided by the quantity of export

quality flowers sold by the grower/exporter to arrive at the per-stem

CV in U.S. dollars. The dollar per-stem CV was then converted to pesos

using the period-end exchange rate and then deflated these peso-

denominated amounts to the value of Colombian peso in each month of the

POR. Next, we converted the peso per-stem CV to dollars 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, with the exception of

Floraterra, all respondents reporting sales of export quality flowers

in the home market stated they had no selling expenses in that market.

Therefore, we did not include selling expenses for those respondents.

For Floraterra, we included the actual selling expenses incurred.

With respect to profit, we preliminarily determine that the

conditions that led to the use of FA for the profit rate in Flowers

Ninth Review continue to exist in the current POR. We find that home

market sales of culls and/or export quality flowers were outside the

ordinary course of trade because the record indicates that 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 also not able to apply the

profit methodology described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.

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.'' Despite our efforts, we have not

been able to find any information on the profits earned in Colombia by

producers of merchandise that is in the same general category of

products as flowers. Therefore, we cannot determine a ``profit cap'' as

described in section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii). Consistent with our practice in

Flowers Ninth Review, we have applied section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) on the

basis of facts available and have developed a profit figure from the

financial statements of a Colombian producer of agricultural and

processed agricultural goods. See Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) at 841. We preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to use

the profit rate for that company, 4.47 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. Finally, we adjusted for commissions paid in the U.S. market by

deducting any indirect selling expenses included in CV up to the amount

of the U.S. commissions.

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.

See Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March

8, 1996). Section 773A(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. See Notice of Final

Determination of Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon

Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61971 (November 19, 1997). 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.

[[Page 5358]]

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, 1996 through February 28, 1997.

Selected Respondents

The following 10 groups of firms (composed of 86 companies) were

selected as respondents and received individual rates, as indicated

below:

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

Percent

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

Agrodex Group.............................................. 0.88

Agricola de las Mercedes S.A.

Agricola el Retiro Ltda.

Agrodex Ltda.

Degaflores Ltda.

Flores Camino Real Ltda.

Flores Cuatro Esquinas Ltda.

Flores de la Comuna Ltda.

Flores de Los Amigos Ltda.

Flores de los Arrayanes Ltda.

Flores de Mayo Ltda.

Flores del Gallinero Ltda.

Flores del Potrero Ltda.

Flores dos Hectareas Ltda.

Flores de Pueblo Viejo Ltda.

Flores el Trentino Ltda.

Flores la Conejera Ltda.

Flores Manare Ltda.

Florlinda Ltda.

Horticola el Triunfo Ltda.

Horticola Montecarlo Ltda.

Caicedo Group.............................................. 3.71

Agrobosque S.A.

Andalucia S.A.

Aranjuez S.A.

Consorcio Agroindustrial Colombiano S.A. ``CAICO''

Exportaciones Bochica S.A.

Floral Ltda.

Flores del Cauca S.A.

Productos el Rosal S.A.

Productos el Zorro S.A.

Claveles Colombianos Group................................. 0.90

Claveles Colombianos Ltda.

Elegant Flowers Ltda.

Fantasia Flowers Ltda.

Splendid Flowers Ltda.

Sun Flowers Ltda.

Cultivos Miramonte Group................................... 0.61

C.I. Colombiana de Bouquets S.A.

Cultivos Miramonte S.A.

Flores Mocari S.A.

Floraterra Group........................................... 6.10

Floraterra S.A.

Flores Casablanca S.A.

Flores Novaterra Ltda.

Flores San Mateo S.A.

Siete Flores S.A.

Florex Group............................................... 1.17

Agricola Guacari S.A.

Agricola el Castillo

Flores San Joaquin

Flores Altamira S.A.

Flores de Exportacion S.A.

Flores Primavera S.A.

Guacatay Group............................................. 2.49

Agricola Cunday S.A.

Agricola Guacatay S.A.

Agricola Ventura

Jardines Bacata Ltda.

Multiflora Comercializadora Internacional S.A.

Queens Flowers Group....................................... 0.11

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 Tandil

Flores la Mana

Flores las Acacias Ltda.

Flores la Valvanera Ltda.

Flores Jayvana

Flores Ubate Ltda.

Jardines de Chia Ltda.

Jardines Fredonia Ltda.

M.G. Consultores Ltda.

Mountain Roses

Queens Flowers de Colombia Ltda.

Quality Flowers S.A.

Florval S.A. (Floval)

Jardines del Rosal.........................................

Tinzuque Group............................................. 1.23

Tinzuque Ltda.

Catu S.A.

Tuchany Group.............................................. 9.21

Tuchany S.A.

Flores Sibate

Flores Tikaya

Flores Munya

Flores Xue S.A.

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

Non-Selected Respondents

The following 338 companies were not selected as respondents and

will receive a rate of 2.55 percent, calculated as discussed above in

the section on ``Non-Selected Respondents'':

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia

Achalay

Aga Group

Agricola la Celestina

Agricola la Maria

Agricola Benilda Ltda.

Agrex de Oriente

Agricola Acevedo Ltda.

Agricola Altiplano

Agricola Arenales Ltda.

Agricola Bonanza Ltda.

Agricola Circasia Ltda.

Agricola de Occident

Agricola del Monte

Agricola el Cactus S.A.

Agricola el Redil

Agricola Guali S.A.

Agricola la Corsaria Ltda.

Agricola la Siberia

Agricola Las Cuadras Group

Agricola las Cuadras Ltda.

Flores de Hacaritama

Agricola Megaflor Ltda.

Agricola Yuldama

Agrocaribu Ltda.

Agro de Narino

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda. Group

Agroindustrial Don Eusebio Ltda.

Celia Flowers

Passion Flowers

Primo Flowers

Temptation Flowers

Agroindustrial Madonna S.A.

Agroindustrias de Narino Ltda.

Agromonte Ltda.

Agropecuria Cuernavaca Ltda.

Agropecuaria la Marcela

Agropecuaria Mauricio

Agrorosas

Agrotabio Kent

Aguacarga

Alcala

Alstroflores Ltda.

Amoret

Ancas Ltda.

Andalucia

Andes Group

Cultivos Buenavista Ltda.

Flores de los Andes Ltda.

Flores Horizonte Ltda.

Inversiones Penas Blancas Ltda.

A.Q.

Arboles Azules Ltda.

Aspen Gardens Ltda.

Astro Ltda.

Becerra Castellanos y Cia.

Bojaca Group

Agricola Bojaca

Universal Flowers

Flores y Plantas Tropicales

Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.

Tropiflora

Cantarrana Group

Cantarrana Ltda.

Agricola los Venados Ltda.

Carcol Ltda.

Cienfuegos Group

Cienfuegos Ltda.

Flores la Conchita

Cigarral Group

Flores Cigarral

Flores Tayrona

Classic

Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.

Clavelez

Coexflor

Colibri Flowers Ltda.

Color Explosion

Combiflor

Consorcio Agroindustrial

Cota

Crest D'or

Crop S.A.

Cultiflores Ltda.

Cultivos Guameru

Cultivos Medellin Ltda.

Cultivos Tahami Ltda.

Cypress Valley

Daflor Ltda.

[[Page 5359]]

Degaflor

De La Pava Guevara E. Hijos Ltda.

Del Monte

Del Tropico Ltda.

Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.

Disagro

Diveragricola

Dynasty Roses Ltda.

El Antelio S.A.

Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen Tantau)

El Milaro

El Tambo

El Timbul Ltda.

Envy Farms Group

Envy Farms

Flores Marandua Ltda.

Euroflora

Exoticas

Exotic Flowers

Exotico

Expoflora Ltda.

Exportadora

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

Ferson Trading

Flamingo Flowers

Flor Colombiana S.A.

Flora Bellisima

Flora Intercontinental

Floralex Ltda..

Floralex Ltda.

Flores el Puente Ltda.

Agricola Los Gaques Ltda.

Florandia Herrera Camacho & Cia.

Floreales Group

Floreales Ltda.

Kimbaya

Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.

Flores Abaco S.A.

Flores Acuarela S.A.

Flores Agromonte

Flores Aguila

Flores Colon Ltda.

Flores de la Sabana S.A.

Flores de Serrezuela S.A.

Flores de Suesca S.A.

Flores del Rio Group

Agricola Cardenal S.A.

Flores del Rio S.A.

Indigo S.A.

Flores El Molino S.A.

Flores El Zorro Ltda.

Flores la Cabanuela

Flores la Fragrancia

Flores la Gioconda

Flores la Lucerna

Flores la Macarena

Flores la Pampa

Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group

Santana

Flores las Caicas

Flores las Mesitas

Flores los Sauces

Flores Monserrate Ltda.

Flores Montecarlo

Flores Monteverde

Flores Palimana

Flores Ramo Ltda.

Flores S.A.

Flores Sagaro

Flores Saint Valentine

Flores Sairam Ltda.

Flores San Andres

Flores San Carlos

Flores San Juan S.A.

Flores Santa Fe Ltda.

Flores Santana

Flores Sausalito

Flores Selectas

Flores Silvestres

Flores Sindamanoi

Flores Suasuque

Flores Tenerife Ltda.

Flores Tiba S.A.

Flores Tocarinda

Flores Tomine Ltda.

Flores Tropicales (Happy Candy) Group

Flores Tropicales Ltda.

Happy Candy Ltda.

Mercedes Ltda.

Rosas Colombianos Ltda.

Flores Urimaco

Flores Violette

Florexpo

Floricola

Floricola la Gaitana S.A.

Florimex Colombia Ltda.

Florisol

Florpacifico

Flor y Color

Flowers of the World/Rosa

Four Seasons

Fracolsa

Fresh Flowers

F. Salazar

Funza Group

Flores Alborada

Flores de Funza S.A.

Flores del Bosque Ltda.

Garden and Flowers Ltda.

German Ocampo

Granja

Green Flowers

Grupo el Jardin

Agricola el Jardin Ltda.

La Marotte S.A.

Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.

Gypso Flowers

Hacienda la Embarrada

Hacienda Matute

Hana/Hisa Group

Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.

Flores Tokai Hisa

Hernando Monroy

Horticultra Montecarlo

Horticultura de la Sasan

Horticultura El Molino

Hosa Group

Horticultura de la Sabana S.A.

HOSA Ltda.

Innovacion Andina S.A.

Minispray S.A.

Prohosa Ltda.

Illusion Flowers

Industria Santa Clara

Industrial Agricola

Industrial Terwengel Ltda.

Ingro Ltda.

Inverpalmas

Inversiones Almer Ltda.

Inversiones Bucarelia

Inversiones Cota

Inversiones el Bambu Ltda.

Inversiones Flores del Alto

Inversiones Maya, Ltda.

Inversiones Morcote

Inversiones Morrosquillo

Inversiones Playa

Inversiones & Producciones Tecnica

Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.

Inversiones Silma

Inversiones Sima

Inversiones Supala S.A.

Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.

Iturrama S.A.

Jardin de Carolina

Jardines Choconta

Jardines Darpu

Jardines Natalia Ltda.

Jardines Tocarema

Jardines de America

Jardines de Timana

J.M. Torres

Karla Flowers

Kingdom S.A.

La Colina

La Embairada

La Flores Ltda.

La Floresta

La Plazoleta Ltda.

Las Amalias Group

Las Amalias S.A.

Pompones Ltda.

La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.

Ramiflora Ltda.

Las Flores

Laura Flowers

L.H.

Linda Colombiana Ltda.

Loma Linda

Loreana Flowers

Los Geranios Ltda.

Luisa Flowers

Luisiana Farms

M. Alejandra

Manjui Ltda.

Mauricio Uribe

Maxima Farms Group

Agricola los Arboles S.A.

Colombian D.C. Flowers

Polo Flowers

Rainbow Flowers

Maxima Farms Inc.

Merastec

Monteverde Ltda.

Morcoto

Nasino

Natuflora Ltda../San Martin Bloque B

Olga Rincon

Oro Verde Group

[[Page 5360]]

Inversiones Miraflores S.A.

Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.

Otono (Agroindustrial Otono)

Papagayo Group

Agricola Papagayo Ltda.

Inversiones Calypso S.A.

Petalos de Colombia Ltda.

Pinar Guameru

Piracania

Pisochago Ltda.

Plantaciones Delta Ltda.

Plantas S.A.

Prismaflor

Propagar Plantas S.A.

Reme Salamanca

Rosa Bella

Rosaflor

Rosales de Colombia Ltda.

Rosales de Suba Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Group

Flores la Colmena Ltda.

Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.

Inversiones la Serena

Agricola la Capilla

Rosas y Jardines

Rose

Rosex Ltda.

Roselandia

San Ernesto

San Valentine

Sansa Flowers

Santa Rosa Group

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola La Ramada Ltda.

Santana Flowers Group

Santana Flowers Ltda.

Hacienda Curibital Ltda.

Inversiones Istra Ltda.

Sarena

Select Pro

Senda Brava Ltda.

Shasta Flowers y Compania Ltda.

Shila

Siempreviva

Soagro Group

Agricola el Mortino Ltda.

Flores Aguaclara Ltda.

Flores del Monte Ltda.

Flores la Estancia

Jaramillo y Daza

Solor Flores Ltda.

Starlight

Superflora Ltda.

Susca

Sweet Farms

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola la Ramada Ltda.

Tag Ltda.

The Beall Company

The Rose

Tomino

Toto Flowers Group

Flores de Suesca S.A.

Toto Flowers

Tropical Garden

Uniflor Ltda.

Velez de Monchaux Group

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

Agroteusa

Victoria Flowers

Villa Cultivos Ltda.

Villa Diana

Vuelven Ltda.

Zipa Flowers

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 also 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 a discussion 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 an importer-

specific per-stem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made

during the POR to the quantity of subject merchandise entered during

the POR. We have used the number of stems entered during the POR,

rather than entered values, because respondents reported average

monthly prices and, moreover, the entered values were not associated

with particular importers. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all

entries of that particular importer made during the POR. 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

Less-Than-Fair-Value (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 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: January 26, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-2482 Filed 1-30-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P