[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50999-51001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20493]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-840]
Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke
Antidumping Duty Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 18, 2010.
SUMMARY: On April 13, 2010, the Department of Commerce published its
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. This review covers two
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States.
The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009.
After analyzing the comments received, we have made certain changes
in the margin calculations. Therefore, these 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.''
Finally, we have determined not to revoke the antidumping duty
order with respect to certain orange juice from Brazil produced and
exported by Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hector Rodriguez or Blaine Wiltse, 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-
0629 or (202) 482-6345, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 13, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of administrative review of the 2008-2009
antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. See Certain
Orange Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Antidumping
Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 18794 (Apr. 13, 2010) (Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
In May 2010, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners
(i.e., Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Citrus World Inc., and
Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation). We also received case
briefs from both respondents (i.e., Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria,
and Agricultura (Fischer) and Cutrale).
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 (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), 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 March 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009.
Determination Not To Revoke Order, In Part
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation
requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit
the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the
subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current
review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at
less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold
commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States
in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an
agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject
merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of
such a request, the Department will consider: (1) Whether the company
in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the company has
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long
as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the
subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the continued
application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to
offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
As we noted in the Preliminary Results, on March 31, 2009, Cutrale
requested revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its
sales of subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). This
request was accompanied by certification that: (1) Cutrale sold the
subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will
not sell the merchandise at less
[[Page 51000]]
than NV in the future; and (2) it sold subject merchandise to the
United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three
consecutive years. Cutrale also agreed to immediate reinstatement of
the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to
the revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See
Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 18795.
After analyzing Cutrale's request for revocation, we find that it
does not meet all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). In this
case, our margin calculation shows that Cutrale sold the subject
merchandise at less than NV during the current review period. See
``Final Results of the Review'' section below. Moreover, Cutrale also
sold the subject merchandise at less than NV in the 2007-2008
administrative review. See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 40167 (Aug.
11, 2009). Therefore, we determine that Cutrale does not qualify for
revocation of the order on certain orange juice pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), and as a result we have not revoked the order with
respect to merchandise produced and exported by Cutrale. For further
discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (the Decision Memo)
at Comment 6.
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. For these final results, we performed the
cost test following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results,
except as discussed in 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 (if any) as the basis for determining NV,
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were no home
market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, we based NV on
constructed value.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case 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 March 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura............ 5.26
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A..................................... 8.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
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. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate is above 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. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in
the less-than-fair-value (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
[[Page 51001]]
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.
Dated: Dated: August 11, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum
1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Capping of Certain Revenues Received by Cutrale by the Amount of
Reported Expenses
3. Clerical Error in Cutrale's Dumping Margin
4. Use of Actual Brix to Calculate the Prices and Quantities for
Cutrale's U.S. Sales
5. Use of Actual Brix for Comparison Purposes for Cutrale's Home
Market Sales
6. Request for Revocation by Cutrale
7. Constructed Export Price Offset for Cutrale
8. Cutrale's Cost of Oranges from Affiliated Parties
9. Cutrale's By-Product Revenue Offset to Cost of Goods Sold (COGS)
10. Cutrale's Other Adjustments to COGS to Reflect Adjustments to
the Cost of Manufacture
11. Fischer's International Freight Expenses
12. Net Exchange Variation for Fischer
13. Fischer's Intercompany Interest Expenses
14. Offset to Intercompany Interest Expenses for Fischer's Financial
Expenses
15. Market Prices for the Sale of Certain By-Products for Fischer
16. Fischer's Unrealized and Eradication Expenses
[FR Doc. 2010-20493 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P