64 FR 8059, February 18, 1999 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 On September 17, 1998, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we rescinded the administrative review with respect to ten groups of producers and exporters of the subject merchandise based on withdrawals of the requests for review by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