[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 156 (Monday, August 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41874-41876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20025]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-605]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1995.

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests for an administrative review by 
the respondents, Branco Peres Citrus, S.A. (Branco) and CTM Citrus S.A. 
(CTM), formerly Citropectina, S.A., the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil. This 
review covers two manufacturers/exporters of FCOJ to the United States 
during the period May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993. We preliminarily 
determine the dumping margins for Branco and CTM during this period to 
be 2.52 and 0.98 percent, respectively. We invite interested parties to 
comment on these preliminary results.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Berg or Greg Thompson, Office of 
Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0114 or 482-3003, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 5, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register an 
antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil (52 FR 16426). The 
Department published in the Federal Register on April 28, 1993 a notice 
of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (58 FR 25802) of 
the antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil for the period of review 
(POR), May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993. On May 28, 1993, 
manufacturers/exporters, Branco and CTM, requested an administrative 
review for this POR. Branco also submitted a timely request for 
revocation of the antidumping duty order. The manufacturer/exporter, 
Frutropic/COINBRA, requested an administrative review for this POR on 
June 1, 1993. Accordingly, the Department initiated an administrative 
review on June 25, 1993, (58 FR 34414) with respect to Branco and CTM. 
On August 24, 1993, (58 FR 44653), we initiated a review with respect 
to Frutropic/COINBRA.
    The Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Branco, CTM 
and Frutropic/COINBRA on September 22, 1993. On October 11, 1994, the 
Department revoked the order with respect to Frutropic/COINBRA in the 
final results of the administrative review for the 1991 through 1992 
POR (59 FR 53137, 53138, October 21, 1994).
    Branco and CTM, on November 2 and 24, 1994, respectively, submitted 
their responses to the Department's questionnaire. On April 14, 1994, 
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to both Branco and 
CTM. Branco and CTM submitted their responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires on May 12, 1994.
    Verification of the factual information submitted by Branco in this 
review was conducted on June 22 and 23, 1994.
    The Department issued a section D, cost of production/constructed 
value, questionnaire to Branco and CTM on August 5, 1994, because our 
preliminary analysis indicated that for certain U.S. sales, 
contemporaneous third country sales were unavailable for comparison 
purposes. Branco and CTM submitted comments regarding how foreign 
market value should be calculated in this review on August 17 and 18, 
1994, respectively. (Note: whereas the Department initially believed 
that section D information was necessary, the Department subsequently 
revised its determination of the most appropriate methodology to apply 
in this review. See the ``Foreign Market Value'' section of this 
notice.)
    On September 6, 1994, the Department requested clarification of 
both Branco's and CTM's responses. Branco and CTM submitted their 
responses in September 1994. The Department requested further 
information of both respondents on February 14 and March 15, 1995. 
Branco and CTM provided this information in March 1995.
Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of FCOJ from Brazil. 
The merchandise is currently classifiable under item 2009.11.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales by Branco and CTM were made at less than 
fair value (LTFV), we compared the United States price (USP) to the 
foreign market value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States Price'' 
and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Tariff Act, as amended (1994) (The Act), because all of Branco's 
and CTM's U.S. sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place prior 
to importation into the United States and exporter's sales price 
methodology was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated purchase price based on packed FOB prices to 
unrelated customers in the United States. We 

[[Page 41875]]
made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and 
Brazilian port charges.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of FCOJ 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, we 
compared each respondents' volume of home market sales of FCOJ to the 
volume of third country sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) 
of the Act. We found that the home market was not viable for either of 
the respondents. Based on each respondent's questionnaire response, we 
selected the Netherlands and Germany as the appropriate third country 
markets for Branco and CTM, respectively, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.49(b) (see November 2, 1993, submission (page three and exhibit B) 
and November 24, 1993, submission (page four)).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(a)(1), we calculated FMV for both 
respondents based on third country FOB sales or offers for sale. If a 
contemporaneous third country sale was available, we based FMV on the 
third country sale. Where contemporaneous third country sales were not 
available, we based FMV on the applicable minimum export price 1 
as a third country offer for sale. (See Preliminary Results Concurrence 
Memorandum, dated June 27, 1995.) We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, port charges and storage. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we deducted, as 
appropriate, third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs 
(packing costs were not incurred on bulk sales). We made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in commission 
and credit expenses. The values used for these adjustments varied 
depending on whether an actual third country sale or third country 
offer for sale was used. For actual third country sales, we used the 
reported transaction-specific amounts. For third country offers for 
sale, we relied on weighted-average POR values of reported third-
country charges.

    \1\  The minimum export price is a floor price set by the 
Carteira do Comercio Exterior do Banco do Brasil (CACEX), the export 
department of the Bank of Brazil. Minimum export prices are based on 
the price of FCOJ on the New York Cotton Exchange. Because the price 
movements of FCOJ on the futures market are irregular, the minimum 
export price may remain the same or change several times within a 
month. It should be noted that during the POR of this sixth review, 
both Branco and CTM sold FCOJ at the minimum export price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since Branco's and CTM's prices are linked to the minimum export 
price, we used FMV periods shorter than a month (see Preliminary 
Results Concurrence Memorandum, dated June 27, 1995). These shorter 
periods were used because the price volatility of minimum export prices 
within POR months was significant enough to have artificially increased 
or decreased dumping margins (see Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from 
Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Revocation of Order in Part, (59 FR 53137, October 21, 1994)). Periods 
were created based on a change in the minimum export price throughout 
the continuum of the POR (see Preliminary Results Concurrence 
Memorandum, dated June 27, 1995).
Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margins to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branco....................................     5/1/92-4/30/93       2.52
CTM.......................................     5/1/92-4/30/93       0.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual differences between USP and FMV may vary from the 
percentages stated above. Upon completion of this administrative 
review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of FCOJ entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of 
this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that 
established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is such a firm, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of FCOJ.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul 
Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83, decided that once an 
``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can only be 
changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined 
that in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to 
reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation 
(or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a 
result of litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty 
orders for the purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current 
and future administrative reviews. Because this proceeding is governed 
by an antidumping duty order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes 
of this review will be 1.96 percent ad valorem, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation (52 FR 8324, March 17, 1987).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Public Comment

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of 
publication. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the 
issues to be discussed.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary no later than August 25, 1995, and rebuttal briefs no later 
than August 29, 1995. A public hearing, if requested, will be held on 
August 31, 1995, at 10:00 am at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in 
Room 1851, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of 
the hearing 48 hours prior to the scheduled time. In accordance with 19 
CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs. The Department will publish a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, including an analysis of issues raised in 
any written comments.
    This result is published pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 353.22.

 
[[Page 41876]]

    Dated: August 8, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-20025 Filed 8-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P