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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-301-602]

Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests 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, 1997 through February 28, 1998.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

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. We invite interested

parties to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 1999.

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-

3853 or (202) 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 351 (April 1998).

Background

On March 11, 1998, 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 63 FR 11868). We published a notice of initiation of an

administrative review of this order on April 21, 1998, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b) (see 63 FR 19709). On September 17, 1998,

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we rescinded the administrative

review with respect to ten groups of producers and exporters of the

subject merchandise based on withdrawals of the requests for review by

the interested parties (see 63 FR 49686). The cash deposit rates for

these companies will continue to be the rates established for them in

the most recently completed final results. On December 7, 1998, we

extended the deadline for these preliminary results until February 10,

1999, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (see 63 FR

67454). From December 8-18, 1998, we verified the responses of four

respondents: Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A. (``Falcon Farms''), Flores

de la Vega Ltda. (``Vegaflor''), Flores de Serrezuela S.A.

(``Serrezuela''), and Flores Silvestres S.A. (``Silvestres''). The

Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with

section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

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 of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS

item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the

Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (``POR'') is March 1, 1997 through February

28, 1998.

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

[[Page 8060]]

administrative review, over 400 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 the Department 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 two

most recent administrative reviews 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 Termination of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 5354 (February 2, 1998) (``Flowers

Tenth Review (Preliminary)''); 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)''); 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); and Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pasta from Italy, 61 FR

1344 (January 19, 1996).

The Department limited its examination in the present review to

seven exporters and producers as permitted under section 777A(c)(2)(B)

of the Act. Of the exporters and producers subject to requests for

review, these seven accounted for the largest volume of exports to the

United States during the POR. The respondents in this review are: the

Caicedo Group (``Caicedo''), Falcon Farms, Flores Colon Ltda. (``Flores

Colon''), the Maxima Farms Group (``Maxima''), Serrezuela, Silvestres,

and Vegaflor.

Non-Selected Respondents

Consistent with our practice in Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Colombia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63

FR 31724 (June 10, 1998) (Flowers Tenth 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.

Verification

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(b)(v), we verified information

provided by those respondents that had not been verified in the last

two administrative reviews and for whom the petitioner requested

verification (see Background section above for a list of verified

companies). We verified information using standard verification

procedures, including on-site examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and inspection of original documentation containing

relevant information.

Duty Absorption

On March 31, 1998, 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. 19 CFR

351.213(j) addresses duty absorption.

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

Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, 19 CFR 351.213(j)(2)

provides that the Department will make a duty absorption determination,

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

The preamble to the proposed 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. See 61 FR 7308, 7317 (February 27, 1996). See also 62 FR at 27318

(May 19, 1997). 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) of the Act. 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 eleventh review,

which was initiated in 1998.

Section 751(a)(4) of the Act 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: Caicedo, Falcon Farms, Maxima, and Vegaflor.

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:

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

Percentage

of U.S.

affiliated

Name of company importer

sales with

margin

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

Caicedo.................................................... 2.66

Falcon Farms............................................... 32.47

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

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 purchaser in the United States will pay the full duty

ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. In the present review,

none of the selected respondents has provided evidence of agreements

with unaffiliated purchasers to pay ultimately assessed antidumping

duties. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the antidumping duties

have been absorbed by the above-listed firms on the percentage of U.S.

sales indicated.

Fair Value Comparisons

United States Price

As permitted by section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we have

preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to average U.S. prices

on a monthly basis in order to (1) use actual price information (which

is often available only on a monthly basis), and (2) account for

perishable product pricing practices. The Department used this same

averaging technique in Flowers Tenth Review, and prior reviews of this

order.

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 charges (e.g., box charges, fuel

surcharges, and antidumping duty surcharge), to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United

[[Page 8061]]

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, fuel surcharges, and

antidumping duty surcharge) 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, fuel surcharges, and antidumping duty surcharge), to the first

unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made adjustments to

these prices, where appropriate, for 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 relating to commercial activity in the United States

(i.e., credit expenses and contributions to the Colombian Flower

Council), 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 the Flowers

Tenth Review, we made adjustments for either commissions paid to

unrelated U.S. consignees or the direct and indirect U.S. selling

expenses of related consignees.

Pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) 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 was calculated in

accordance with section 772(f) of the Act.

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 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 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.

During the POR, none of the companies selected to respond in this

review had sales in the home market exceeding five percent of the sales

to the U.S. market, i.e., none had a viable home market. 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.

During this POR, certain companies selected to respond had viable

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

rejected using prices to Europe because the particular market situation

prevents a proper comparison. See Flowers Tenth Review at 31725.

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 Canada, only one selected respondent had a viable

third country market. Because this is not a significant export market

for Colombia, we have determined that, under the facts of this case,

prices to Canada are not representative within the meaning of section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act. As discussed in the Respondent

Selection section above, we have limited our analysis to a subset of

the Colombian companies exporting the subject merchandise 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 Canada is not 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.

Thus, to use sales to Canada as the basis of our margin calculations

for the single exporter that has a viable market in Canada and then

include those results in calculating the rate used for assessing duties

on the non-selected respondents' imports would be inappropriate for the

vast majority of growers. Furthermore, all interested parties in this

review agree that sales to Canada should not be used as a basis for NV.

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

Secretary, Import Administration ``Canadian Sales,'' dated February 10,

1999, on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of

Commerce. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act,

we are basing NV on CV.

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 Flowers Tenth Review, we first

converted costs incurred in each month from pesos to dollars using the

corresponding month's exchange rate. See Flowers Tenth Review

(Preliminary) at 5357 (explaining the Department's methodology). We

totaled the monthly cost expressed in dollars over the POR and divided

by the quantity of export quality flowers sold by the producer 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 each month to account for fluctuations in the value of the

Colombian peso during the POR. Next, 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 the respondents had no home market sales, we used as

general and administrative expenses the expenses associated with the

respondents' sales to all other markets. With respect to selling

expenses, all respondents reporting sales of export quality flowers in

the home market reported no selling expenses. Therefore, we included

zero as the actual amount of selling expenses incurred and realized by

the exporters and producers being examined in this review.

With respect to profit, we preliminarily determine that the

conditions that led to the use of facts available for the profit rate

in the Flowers Ninth Review and the Flowers Tenth Review continue to

exist in the current POR. We find that home market sales of culls and

export quality flowers were outside the ordinary course of trade.

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

[[Page 8062]]

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) of the Act. Consistent with our

practice in Flowers Ninth Review and Flowers Tenth Review, we have

applied section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act 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, 2.87 percent of cost of production, for

all respondents. See Memorandum from Team to Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration ``Calculation of

Constructed Value Profit,'' dated February 10, 1999, on file in the

Central Records Unit of the Department of Commerce.

We added U.S. packing to CV. 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.

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.

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, 1997 through February 28, 1998.

Selected Respondents

The following seven firms and groups of firms (composed of 19

companies) were selected as respondents and received individual rates,

as indicated below:

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

Percent

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

Caicedo Group................................................ 1.06

Agrobosques S.A.

Andalucia S.A.

Aranjuez S.A

Exportaciones Bochica S.A.

Floral Ltda.

Flores del Cauca S.A.

Productos el Rosal S.A.

Productos el Zorro S.A.

Falcon Farms de Colombia S.A................................. 3.31

Flores Colon Ltda............................................ 1.87

Flores de la Vega (Vegaflor)................................. 0.07

Flores de Serrezuela S.A..................................... 1.82

Flores Silvestres S.A........................................ 2.36

Maxima Farms Group........................................... 0.34

Agricola Los Arboles S.A.

C.I. Maxima Floral Traders S.A.

Colombian D.C. Flowers

Maxima Farms Inc.

Polo Flowers S.A.

Rainbow Flowers S.A.

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

Non-Selected Respondents

The following companies were not selected as respondents and will

receive a rate of 1.83 percent:

Abaco Tulipanex de Colombia

Achalay

Aga Group

Agricola la Celestina

Agricola la Maria

Agrex de Oriente

Agricola Acevedo

Agricola Altiplano

Agricola Arenales Ltda.

Agricola Benilda 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 C.I. Ltda.

Agricola la Siberia

Agricola Las Cuadras Group

Agricola Las Cuadras Ltda.

Flores de Hacaritama

Agricola los Gaques Ltda.

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.

Agropecuaria Cuernavaca Ltda.

Agropecuaria la Marcela

Agropecuaria Mauricio

Agrorosas

Agrotabio Kent

Aguacarga

Alcala

Alstroflores Ltda.

Amoret

Ancas Ltda.

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

Flores del Neusa Nove Ltda.

Flores y Plantas Tropicales

Tropiflora

Universal Flowers

Cantarrana Group

Agricola los Venados Ltda.

Cantarrana Ltda.

Carcol Ltda.

Cigarral Group

Flores Cigarral

Flores Tayrona

Classic

Claveles de los Alpes Ltda.

Clavelez

Coexflor

Colibri Flowers Ltda.

Color Explosion

Combiflor

Cota

Crest D'or

Crop S.A.

Cultiflores Ltda.

Cultivos Guameru

Cultivos Medellin Ltda.

Cultivos Tahami Ltda.

Cypress Valley

Daflor Ltda.

[[Page 8063]]

Degaflor

De La Pava Guevara e Hijos Ltda.

Del Monte

Del Rio Group

Agricola Cardenal S.A.

Flores del Rio S.A.

Indigo S.A.

Del Tropico Ltda.

Dianticola Colombiana Ltda.

Disagro

Diveragricola

Dynasty Roses Ltda.

El Antelio S.A.

El Dorado

Elite Flowers (The Elite Flower/Rosen Tantau)

El Jardin Group

Agricola el Jardin Ltda.

La Marotte S.A.

Orquideas Acatayma Ltda.

El Milaro

El Tambo

El Timbul Ltda.

Envy Farms Group

Envy Farms

Flores Marandua Ltda.

Euroflora

Exoticas

Exotic Flowers

Exotico

Expoflora Ltda.

Exporosas

Exportadora

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..

Florandia Herrera Camacho y Cia.

Floreales Group

Floreales Ltda.

Kimbaya

Florenal (Flores el Arenal) Ltda.

Flores Abaco S.A.

Flores Acuarela S.A.

Flores Agromonte

Flores Aguila

Flores Ainsuca Ltda.

Flores Ainsus

Flores Alcala Ltda.

Flores Andinas

Flores Aurora

Flores Bachue Ltda.

Flores Calichana

Flores Carmel S.A.

Flores Cerezangos

Flores Comercial Bellavista Ltda.

Flores Corola

Flores de Aposentos Ltda.

Flores de Guasca

Flores de Iztari

Flores de Memecon/Corinto

Flores de la Cuesta

Flores de la Hacienda

Flores de la Maria

Flores de la Montana

Flores de la Parcelita

Flores de la Sabana Group

Flores de la Sabana S.A.

Roselandia S.A.

Flores de la Vereda

Flores del Campo Ltda.

Flores del Cielo Ltda.

Flores del Cortijo

Flores del Lago Ltda.

Flores del Tambo

Flores de Oriente

Flores de Suba

Flores de Suesca Group

Flores de Suesca S.A.

Toto Flowers

Flores de Tenjo Ltda.

Flores Depina Ltda.

Flores el Lobo

Flores el Molino S.A.

Flores el Puente Ltda.

Flores el Rosal Ltda

Flores el Talle Ltda.

Flores el Zorro Ltda

Flores Flamingo Ltda.

Flores Fusu

Flores Galia Ltda.

Flores Gicor Group

Flores Cicor Ltda.

Flores de Colombia

Flores Gloria

Flores Hacienda Bejucol

Flores Juanambu Ltda.

Flores Juncalito Ltda.

Flores la Cabanuela

Flores la Fragancia S.A.

Flores la Gioconda

Flores la Lucerna

Flores la Macarena

Flores la Pampa

Flores la Union/Gomez Arango & Cia. Group

Flores la Union/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 Sindamanoi

Flores Suasuque

Flores Tenerife Ltda.

Flores Tiba S.A.

Flores Tocarinda

Flores Tomine Ltda.

Flores Tropicales Group

Flores Tropicales Ltda.

Mercedes S.A.

Rosas Colombianas Ltda.

Flores Urimaco

Flores Violette

Florexpo

Floricola

Floricola la Gaitana S.A.

Floricola la Ramada Ltda.

Florimex Colombia Ltda.

Florisol

Florpacifico

Flor y Color

Floval

Flower Factory

Flowers of the World/Rosa

Four Seasons

Fracolsa

Fresh Flowers

F. Salazar

Garden and Flowers Ltda.

German Ocampo

Granja

Green Flowers

Gypso Flowers

Hacienda la Embarrada

Hacienda Matute

Hana/Hisa Group

Flores Hana Ichi de Colombia Ltda.

Flores Tokai Hisa

Hernando Monroy

Hill Crest Gardens

Horticultura de la Sasan

Horticultura el Molino

Horticultura Montecarlo

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

Inversiones Morcote

Inversiones Morrosquillo

Inversiones Playa

Inversiones & Producciones Tecnica

Inversiones Santa Rita Ltda.

Inversiones Santa Rosa ARW Ltda.

Inversiones Silma

Inversiones Sima

Inversiones Supala S.A.

Inversiones Valley Flowers Ltda.

Iturrama S.A.

Jardin de Carolina

Jardines Choconta

Jardines Darpu

Jardines de America

Jardines de Timana

Jardines Natalia Ltda.

Jardines Tocarema

J.M. Torres

Karla Flowers

[[Page 8064]]

Kingdom S.A.

La Colina

La Conchita Group

Agropecuaria La Monja

Cienfuegos

C.I. Flores Santillana Ltda.

Flores la Conchita

La Embairada

La Flores Ltda.

La Floresta

La Plazoleta Ltda.

Las Amalias Group

La Fleurette de Colombia Ltda.

Las Amalias S.A.

Pompones Ltda.

Ramiflora Ltda.

Las Flores

Laura Flowers

L.H.

Linda Colombiana Ltda.

Loma Linda

Loreana Flowers

Los Geranios Ltda.

Luisa Flowers

M. Alejandra

Manjui Ltda.

Mauricio Uribe

Merastec

Monteverde Ltda.

Morcoto

Nasino

Natuflora/San Martin Bloque B Ltda.

Olga Rincon

Oro Verde Group

Inversiones Miraflores S.A.

Inversiones Oro Verde S.A.

Otono

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

Agricola la Capilla

Flores la Colmena Ltda.

Inversiones la Serena

Rosas Sabanilla Ltda.

Rosas y Jardines

Rose

Rosex Ltda.

San Ernesto

San Valentine

Sansa Flowers

Santana Flowers Group

Hacienda Curibital Ltda.

Inversiones Istra Ltda.

Santana Flowers Ltda.

Santa Rosa Group

Flores Santa Rosa Ltda.

Floricola la Ramada 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

Sunbelt Florals

Superflora Ltda.

Susca

Sweet Farms

Tag Ltda.

The Beall Company

The Rose

Tikiya Flowers

Tinzuque Group

Catu S.A.

Tinzuque Ltda

Tomino

Tropical Garden

Tuchany Group

Flores Munya

Flores Sibate

Flores Tikaya

Tuchany S.A.

Uniflor Ltda.

Velez de Monchaux Group

Agroteusa

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

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 30 days after publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also submit written arguments in case briefs on these

preliminary results within 30 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. 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. 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. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of

rebuttal briefs.

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 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 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, except that no cash deposit will be required if the rate is de

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent; (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 351.401(f)(2) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

[[Page 8065]]

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

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: February 10, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-4012 Filed 2-17-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P