[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46584-46586]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au08-28]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-351-840)
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2008.
SUMMARY: On April 7, 2008, the Department of Commerce published its
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. The period of review
(POR) is August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007. We are rescinding
the review with respect to one company because this company had no
entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average
dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3874 or (202) 482-0049, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 7, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. See Certain Orange
Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 18773 (Apr. 7, 2008)
(Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
In May 2008, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e.,
Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Citrus World Inc., and Southern
Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation) and the respondents (i.e.,
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura (Fischer) and
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale)). Also in May 2008, we received
rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and the respondents.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport
and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms: (1)
frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred
to as frozen concentrated orange juice for manufacture (FCOJM); and (2)
pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been
concentrated, referred to as not-from-concentrate
[[Page 46585]]
(NFC). At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing
antidumping duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from
Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice
from Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). Therefore, the scope of this
order with regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM produced and/or exported
by those companies which were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing
antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. Those
companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada, Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) (Coinbra-
Frutesp), Cutrale, Fischer, and Montecitrus Trading S.A.
Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice
and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted
orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by
adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR
is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42 Brix, in a frozen state,
packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a
finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of
FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings
2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not
dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of the order
is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007.
Partial Rescission of Review
On May 1, 2007, Coinbra-Frutesp informed the Department that it had
no entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
We have confirmed this with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
See the March 31, 2008, memorandum to the file from Elizabeth Eastwood
entitled, ``Placing Customs Entry Data on the Record of the 2005-2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Orange Juice from
Brazil.'' Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and
consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review
with respect to Coinbra-Frutesp. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in
Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005).
Cost of Production
As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether Cutrale and Fischer made home market
sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their
costs of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the
Act. See Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 18777. For these final results,
we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the
Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (the Decision Memo).
We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of
trade. See sections 773(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that
Cutrale and Fischer made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of
trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed
in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo,
which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion
of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit, room 1117, of the main Department Building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes to the margin calculations. These changes are discussed
in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages
exist for the period August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura... 4.81
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A............................ 0.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Cutrale and Fischer
reported the entered value for some or all of their U.S. sales, we have
calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which
entered value was reported. For Fischer's U.S. sales reported without
entered values, we have calculated importer-specific per-unit duty
assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total
quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates
are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios
based on the estimated entered value.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was
destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to
POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we
are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments,
because these companies certified that
[[Page 46586]]
they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had
knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in
the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of certain orange juice from Brazil 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)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less
than 0.50 percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 2) for previously
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, or the
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) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.51 percent, the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 72 FR 12183 (Mar. 9, 2006).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), 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.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section
351.221(b)(5) of the Department's regulations.
Dated: August 5, 2008.
David M. Spooner.
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum
General Issues
1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Granting an Offset for U.S. Duty Drawback
3. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results
4. Universe of Reviewed U.S. Sales Transactions
Company-Specific Issues
5. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset for Cutrale
6. Treating Sales to One of Cutrale's Home Market Customers as
Affiliated Party Transactions
7. Calculation of CEP Profit for Cutrale
8. The Calculation of the Denominator used in the General and
Administrative (G&A) and Financial Expense Ratios for Cutrale
9. Valuation of Fruit Purchased from Affiliates for Cutrale
10. Inclusion of Export Financing Expenses in the Calculation of the
Financial Expense Ratio for Cutrale
11. Unit of Measure for Comparison Purposes for NFC for Fischer
12. Product Matching Methodology for Fischer
13. Granting a Quantity Adjustment for Fischer's NFC Sales
14. Fischer's Home Market NFC Sales Used for Comparison Purposes
15. The Application of Inventory Carrying Costs by Control Number for
Fischer
16. The Calculation of Harbor Maintenance Fees for One U.S. Sales
Observation for Fischer
17. Request to Treat Two of Fischer's U.S. Sales as Export Price
Transactions
18. Fischer's Raw Material Cost Allocation Methodology
19. Calculation of Fischer's G&A Expense Ratio
[FR Doc. E8-18479 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S