[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5798-5800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3101]


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

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


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

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

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests from the respondents, Branco 
Peres Citrus, S.A. (Branco) and CTM Citrus S.A., formerly Citropectina 
(CTM), the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an 
administrative review of the antidumping order on frozen concentrated 
orange juice from Brazil. The review covers merchandise exported to the 
United States by these two respondents during the period of May 1, 
1992, through April 30, 1993.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann or Greg Thompson Office 
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-5288 or (202) 482-3003, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On August 14, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of its 1992-93 administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice 
(FCOJ) from Brazil (60 FR 41874). On August 25, 1995, both respondents 
submitted case briefs. The petitioners submitted a rebuttal brief on 
August 29, 1995. There was no request for a hearing. The Department has 
now conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The final margins for Branco 
and CTM are listed below in the section ``Final Results of Review.''

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 the 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

    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 calculated USP according to the methodology described in our 
preliminary results.

Foreign Market Value (FMV)

    As stated in the preliminary results, we found that the home market 
was not viable for either respondent and based FMV on third country FOB 
sales or offers for sale.
    We calculated FMV according to the methodology described in our 
preliminary results.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Packing Cost for Branco

    Branco contends that the Department mistakenly added U.S. packing 
costs to the third-country price used to calculate foreign market 
value.
    The petitioners contend that the Department adjusted the prices to 
make an accurate comparison of net prices, and that the Department 
should continue with this approach in the final results.

Department Position

    We agree with the petitioners. It is Department practice to compare 
ex-factory packed prices. In order to adjust for differences in packing 
expenses, the Department subtracts the comparison market packing from 
the FMV and adds U.S. packing to the FMV (see Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, 
from Japan, 60 FR 62387-89, December 6, 1995).

Comment 2: Use of Shorter Periods

    In the preliminary results, we confirmed that there is a direct 
linkage between respondents' prices in this review period and the 
minimum export price (MEP) which is based on the price of FCOJ on the 
New York Cotton Exchange (NYCE) futures market. Given the price 
volatility of the MEP during this review period, we adopted the 
methodology used in past FCOJ reviews of using FMV periods that are 
shorter than a month. Insofar as the fluctuations in the MEP reached up 
to 51% in a given month for this review period, we determined that it 
was necessary for comparison periods to be based on any change in the 
MEP throughout the continuum of the period of review (POR).
    CTM states that the Department has retroactively defined the time 
periods for price-to-price comparisons. The respondent further states 
that this approach was not well considered, and urges the Department to 
rely on monthly weighted average comparisons.
    The petitioners contend that the MEP has been used as a tool to 
define shorter FMV comparison periods in three prior administrative 
reviews of FCOJ. The petitioners further contend that this methodology 
should, in theory, be a more accurate measure of whether less-than-
fair-value pricing has occurred in this volatile commodity market.

Department Position

    We agree with the petitioners that changes in the MEP have been 
used in past reviews to establish FMV comparison periods shorter than 
one month, and that using the MEP should, in theory, be a more accurate 
measure in a volatile market. The Department first used shorter FMV 
periods in the third review because a severe freeze in Florida had a 
dramatic effect on the price for FCOJ on the NYCE futures market and, 
thus, the MEP. In that review, shorter FMV periods were defined by 
changes of ten percent in the MEP in a given month. While the same 
methodology was used in the fourth and fifth reviews, the reason for 
using it was not discussed. In the sixth review, we have continued to 
use the MEP to determine shorter FMV periods, however, we have refined 
the methodology in the following manner. First, since FCOJ commodity 
prices on the NYCE fluctuate on a continuum, unrelated to the starting 
and ending of

[[Page 5799]]

months, we based the periods on changes throughout the review period 
and not just changes in a given month. Second, we believe that 
comparison periods based on any change in the MEP, as opposed to a ten 
percent change, provide us with a more accurate analysis, given the 
significant price fluctuations in this review period. For further 
discussion of this issue, see the preliminary results concurrence 
memorandum, dated August 8, 1995.

Comment 3: Date of Sale for CTM

    CTM contends that the Department incorrectly used the date of 
issuance of the export license as the date of sale. CTM further 
contends that the date of shipment is its appropriate date of sale.
    The petitioners state that the use of the date of issuance of the 
export license is harmonious with the Department's contemporaneous 
sales methodology (i.e., price is set as of that date regardless of 
when the merchandise is shipped). The petitioners also state that using 
this methodology allows the Department to match U.S. with third-country 
sales which were made under similar market pressures (i.e., 
hyperinflation and rapid FCOJ price fluctuations in the NYCE futures 
market).

Department Position

    We agree with the petitioners. In its September 9, 1994, 
submission, CTM stated that while the price for the transaction is set 
as of the date of issuance of the export license, the quantity is not 
fixed until the date of the shipment. However, after reviewing CTM's 
export documents and invoices for all third-country and U.S. sales made 
during the POR, it is clear that the terms of sale were established on 
the date of issuance of the export license. With one exception, a 
quantity difference of less than one percent, the terms of sale on the 
export license matched the terms on the relevant invoice. (see 
preliminary results concurrence memorandum).

Comment 4: Use of Exchange Rates for CTM

    CTM contends that in converting the inland freight expense for U.S. 
shipments to dollars, the Department should use the exchange rate in 
effect on the date of payment of these expenses.

Department Position

    We agree with the respondent that, on occasion, when calculating 
margins for hyperinflationary economies, charges and adjustments have 
been converted to dollars based on the exchange rate in effect on the 
date the charge becomes payable. However, because of the administrative 
burden associated with using this methodology, the Department's 
preference is to convert charges on the date of shipment, the closest 
approximation to the date the charges become payable. In this instance, 
the issue is moot because information concerning the dates that the 
charges became payable is not on the record.

Comment 5: Comparison Periods

    CTM states that if the Department were to use the 90/60 rule to 
define comparison periods, there would be no need to use the MEP as a 
surrogate for establishing FMV because there would be actual sales 
which could be used for comparison purposes.
    The petitioners state that using the 90/60 rule is inconsistent 
with the logic of using shorter periods in the first place--namely, to 
avoid distortions in margin calculation due to fluctuations in 
commodity prices.

Department Position

    We agree with the petitioners that using the 90/60 rule would 
ignore the reason for using shorter periods in the first place. 
Furthermore, we have confirmed that there is a strict correlation 
between the MEP, a long-standing program established by the Brazilian 
FCOJ producers, and the prices to the U.S. and third-country sales of 
both respondents. Accordingly, we have continued to rely on the 
methodology used in the preliminary determination to avoid distortion 
in the dumping margin calculations.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period of May 
1, 1992 through April 30, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branco.....................................................         2.52
CTM........................................................         0.98
All Others.................................................         1.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirement will be effective 
for all shipments of FCOJ 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 by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
companies will be as outlined above; (2) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in 
previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate 
published in the most recent final results or determination for which 
the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, an earlier review, 
or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise 
in the final results of this review, earlier reviews, or the LTFV 
investigation, whichever is the most recent; (4) the cash deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 1.96 percent, the 
``all other'' rate established in the original LTFV investigation by 
the Department (52 FR 8324, March 17, 1987), in accordance with the 
decisions of the Court of International Trade in Floral Trade Council 
v. United States, Slip Op. 993-79, and Federal-Mogul Corporation v. 
United States, Slip Op. 93-83.
    These cash 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 final 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 in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also 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 353.34(d). 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 terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.


[[Page 5800]]


    Dated: January 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-3101 Filed 2-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P