[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40612-40617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15232]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-855]


Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission, and Partial 
Deferral of 2002-2003 Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results, partial rescission, and partial 
deferral of 2002-2003 administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting the third 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on non-frozen apple 
juice concentrate from the People's Republic of China covering the 
period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003.
    The administrative review covers one exporter: Gansu Tongda Fruit 
Juice and Beverage Company. We preliminarily determine that sales of 
non-frozen apple juice concentrate from the People's Republic of China 
were made below

[[Page 40613]]

normal value during the period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003.
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess 
antidumping duties for Gansu Tongda Fruit Juice Beverage Company based 
on the differences between the export price and normal value on all 
appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective: July 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman, Stephen Cho, or John 
Brinkmann, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3534, (202) 482-3798, or 
(202) 482-4126, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 2002, through May 31, 
2003.

Background

    On June 5, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published in the Federal Register (65 FR 35606) the antidumping duty 
order on certain non-frozen apple juice concentrate from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''). On June 2, 2003, the Department notified 
interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative 
review of this order (68 FR 32727). On June 27, 2003, Sanmenxia 
Lakeside Fruit Juice Co., Ltd. (``Lakeside'') and Xian Yang Fuan Juice 
Co., Ltd. (``Xian Yang'') requested an administrative review. On June 
30, 2003, Xian Asia Qin Fruit Co., Ltd. (``Xian Asia''), Shaanxi 
Hengxing Fruit Juice Co., Ltd. (``Hengxing''), and Gansu Tongda Fruit 
Juice Beverage Company (``Gansu Tongda'') requested an administrative 
review.
    On June 30, 2003, Yantai Oriental Juice Co., Ltd. (``Oriental''), 
SDIC Zhonglu Fruit Juice Co., Ltd. (``Zhonglu''), and Shaanxi Haisheng 
Fresh Fruit Juice Co., Ltd. (``Haisheng'') requested an administrative 
review for the period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003, but also 
requested that the review be deferred for one year pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(c). In the same letter they also requested a revocation 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e). On July 9, 2003, Lakeside also submitted 
a letter requesting a one-year deferral of the third administrative 
review. We note that Oriental, Zhonglu, Haisheng and Lakeside were 
subsequently excluded from the order pursuant to the February 13, 2004, 
Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant to 
Final Court Decision, (69 FR 7197).
    On July 29, 2003, we published a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review (68 FR 44524) for Gansu Tongda, 
Hengxing, Xian Asia and Xian Yang. In the same notice we also deferred 
the administrative review for Zhonglu, Oriental, Lakeside and Haisheng.
    On August 6, 2003, the Department sent questionnaires to the legal 
representatives of Gansu Tongda, Hengxing, Xian Asia and Xian Yang and 
a copy to the Embassy of the PRC in the United States.
    On August 18, 2003, Xian Yang and Xian Asia requested that the 
Department rescind their administrative reviews. On August 26, 2003, 
Hengxing requested that the Department rescind its administrative 
review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), because Xian Asia, Xian Yang, 
and Hengxing withdrew their requests for review within 90 days of the 
date of publication of the notice of initiation of this review and no 
other party requested a review of these companies, we are rescinding 
the administrative reviews of Xian Asia, Xian Yang, and Hengxing.
    We received the Section A response from Gansu Tongda (``the 
respondent'') on October 17, 2003, and the Sections C and D responses 
on November 14, 2003. We sent out a supplemental questionnaire on 
December 22, 2003, and received a response on January 12, 2004.
    On January 6, 2004, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on surrogate country selection and to provide publicly 
available information for valuing the factors of production. We 
received a response from Gansu Tongda on February 17, 2004.
    On March 4, 2004, we published Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice 
Concentrate From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2002-2003 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, (69 FR 10204) and sent a supplemental 
questionnaire on March 4, 2004. We received the supplemental response 
on April 8, 2004. We sent a third supplemental questionnaire on April 
20, 2004, and received a response on April 28, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is certain non-frozen apple juice 
concentrate (``AJC''). AJC is defined as all non-frozen concentrated 
apple juice with a Brix scale of 40 or greater, whether or not 
containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and whether or not 
fortified with vitamins or minerals. Excluded from the scope of this 
order are: Frozen concentrated apple juice; non-frozen concentrated 
apple juice that has been fermented; and non-frozen concentrated apple 
juice to which spirits have been added.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings 2106.90.52.00, and 2009.70.00.20 before January 1, 2002, 
and 2009.79.00.20 after January 1, 2002. Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') 
country in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), any 
determination that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the Department. None of the parties to this proceeding 
have contested such treatment in this review. Moreover, parties to this 
proceeding have not argued that the PRC AJC industry is a market-
oriented industry. Therefore, we are treating the PRC as an NME country 
within the meaning of section 773(c) of the Act.
    We allow companies in NME countries to receive separate antidumping 
duty rates for purposes of assessment and cash deposits when those 
companies can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to export activities.
    To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). Under the 
separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if a respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de

[[Page 40614]]

jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Absence of De Jure Control

    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 
56 FR at 20589.
    Gansu Tongda has placed documents on the record to demonstrate the 
absence of de jure government control. These documents include the 
``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China'' (``Foreign 
Trade Law''), the ``Company Law of the PRC'' (``Company Law''), and the 
``Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China 
Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations'' (``Administrative 
Regulations''). The Foreign Trade Law grants autonomy to foreign trade 
operators in management decisions and establishes accountability for 
their own profits and losses. In prior cases, the Department has 
analyzed the Foreign Trade Law and found that it establishes an absence 
of de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the 
People's Republic of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995); Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 
31, 1998) (``Mushrooms Final''). We have no new information in this 
proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination.
    The Company Law is designed to meet the PRC's needs of establishing 
a modern enterprise system, and to maintain social and economic order. 
The Department has noted that the Company Law supports an absence of de 
jure control because of its emphasis on the responsibility of each 
company for its own profits and losses, thereby decentralizing control 
of companies.
    Like the Company Law, the Administrative Regulations safeguard 
social and economic order, as well as establish an administrative 
system for the registration of corporations. The Department has 
reviewed the Administrative Regulations and concluded that they show an 
absence of de jure control by requiring companies to bear civil 
liabilities independently, thereby decentralizing control of companies.
    According to the respondent, AJC exports are not affected by quota 
allocations or export license requirements. The Department has examined 
the record in this case and does not find any evidence that AJC exports 
are affected by quota allocations or export license requirements. By 
contrast, the evidence on the record demonstrates that producers/
exporters have the autonomy to set the price at whatever level they 
wish through independent price negotiations with their foreign 
customers and without government interference.
    Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of 
de jure government control over export pricing and marketing decisions 
of Gansu Tongda.

Absence of De Facto Control

    De facto absence of government control over exports is based on 
four factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices 
independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government 
regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 
22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    As stated in previous cases, there is evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Mushrooms Final, 63 FR at 72255. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates.
    The Department has reviewed the record in this case and notes that 
the respondent: (1) Establishes its own export prices; (2) negotiates 
contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) retains 
the proceeds from export sales and uses profits according to its 
business needs without any restrictions.
    The information on the record supports a preliminary finding that 
there is an absence of de facto governmental control of the export 
functions of Gansu Tongda. Consequently, we preliminarily determine 
that Gansu Tongda has met the criteria for the application of separate 
rates.
    As described below, the Department has determined that Gansu Tongda 
is affiliated with two other producers of AJC, Tongda Fruit Juice and 
Beverage Liquan Co., Ltd. (``Liquan'') and Tongda Fruit Juice & 
Beverage Binxian Co., Ltd. (``Binxian''), and has preliminarily treated 
them as a single company for purposes of its antidumping duty analysis. 
Accordingly, the Department will issue separate rates questionnaires to 
Binxian and Liquan before the publication of the final results, and 
analyze the combined entity's eligibility for a separate rate at that 
time.

Affiliation

    Gansu Tongda exported AJC to the United States during the POR that 
it had produced itself. Gansu Tongda also purchased AJC from an 
affiliate, Liquan, which it then sold to the United States during the 
POR. Liquan did not make any sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. Gansu Tongda is also affiliated with Binxian, 
another producer of subject merchandise. Binxian did not sell AJC to 
the United States during the POR, nor did Gansu Tongda purchase AJC 
from Binxian for sale to the United States during the POR.
    Section 771(33)(E) of the Act provides that the Department will 
find parties to be affiliated if any person directly or indirectly 
owns, controls, or holds power to vote, five percent or more of the 
outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such 
organization. Section 771(33)(F) of the Act provides that parties are 
affiliated if two or more persons directly or indirectly control, or 
are controlled by, or under common control with any other person; and 
section 771(33)(G) of the Act provides that parties are affiliated if 
any person controls any other person. To the extent that section 
771(33) of the Act does not conflict with the Department's application 
of separate rates and enforcement of the NME provision, section 773(c) 
of the Act, the Department will determine that exporters and/or 
producers are affiliated if the facts of the case support such a 
finding.
    Gansu Tongda, Liquan and Binxian have two parent companies who 
share 100 percent control over the three companies and are legally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over all three companies. 
See page two and Exhibit 6 of Gansu Tongda's October 17, 2003, 
submission; and page 1 of Gansu Tongda's January 12, 2004, submission.

[[Page 40615]]

Furthermore, all three companies share the same board of directors, 
sales office staff, and legal representative. See page 2, Exhibit 3 and 
Exhibit 5 of Gansu Tongda's April 8, 2004, submission. For these 
reasons, the Department has determined that Gansu Tongda, Liquan and 
Binxian are affiliated in accordance with section 771(33) of the Act.

Collapsing

    Based on the ownership ties described above, the Department 
requested Gansu Tongda to (1) report the factors of production data 
from each company listed above if it produced subject merchandise 
during the POR; and (2) provide information on the relationship between 
and among these companies for purposes of determining whether the 
Department should collapse any or all of them in the preliminary 
results (see March 4, 2004, supplemental questionnaire for details).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse 
producers and treat them as a single entity where (1) those producers 
are affiliated, (2) the producers have production facilities for 
producing similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant potential for 
manipulation of price or production. In determining whether a 
significant potential for manipulation exists, the regulation provides 
that the Department may consider various factors, including (1) the 
level of common ownership, (2) the extent to which managerial employees 
or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an 
affiliated firm, and (3) whether the operations of the affiliated firms 
are intertwined. See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12764, 
12774 (March 16, 1998) and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails from Taiwan, 62 FR 51427, 51436 
(October 1, 1997). To the extent that this provision does not conflict 
with the Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of 
the NME provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will 
collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case involving an NME 
country if the facts of the case warrant such treatment. See Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 
10410 (March 5, 2004) (``Mushrooms Prelim''). Furthermore, we note that 
the factors listed in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in 
the context of an NME investigation or administrative review, other 
factors unique to the relationship of business entities within the NME 
may lead the Department to determine that collapsing is either 
warranted or unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. See 
Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1344 
(CIT 2003) (noting that the application of collapsing in the NME 
context may differ from the standard factors listed in the regulation).
    In summary, depending upon the facts of each investigation or 
administrative review, if there is evidence of significant ownership 
ties or control between or among producers which produce similar and/or 
identical merchandise, but may not all produce their product for sale 
to the United States, the Department may find such evidence sufficient 
to apply the collapsing criteria in an NME context in order to 
determine whether all or some of those affiliated producers should be 
treated as one entity, see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the People's Republic of China, Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001).
    Gansu Tongda has reported that Gansu Tongda, Liquan and Binxian all 
produced identical or similar merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we 
find that the first and second criteria for collapsing are met here 
because these companies are affiliated as explained above and all have 
production facilities for producing similar or identical products that 
would not require substantial retooling in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities.
    Finally, we find that the third collapsing criterion is met in this 
case because a significant potential for manipulation of price or 
production exists among Gansu Tongda, Liquan and Binxian for the 
following reasons. As explained above, there is a high level of common 
ownership between and among these companies. Second, also as discussed 
above, a significant level of common control exists among these 
companies. Third, Gansu Tongda's acquisition and sale of subject 
merchandise produced by Liquan indicates that the operations of these 
companies are intertwined, as does the fact that all three companies 
share the same sales office staff. Thus, we find that the operations of 
Gansu Tongda, Liquan and Binxian are sufficiently intertwined.
    Therefore, based on the above-mentioned findings and following the 
guidance of 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed Gansu 
Tongda, Liquan and Binxian because there is a significant potential for 
manipulation between these affiliated parties. See Mushrooms Prelim.

Export Price

    For sales made by Gansu Tongda we used export price (``EP''), in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
prior to importation into the United States and because the constructed 
export price methodology was not warranted by other circumstances.
    We calculated EP based on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we deducted from these 
prices, where appropriate, amounts for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, other U.S. transportation expense, and U.S. 
customs duty (including merchandise processing and harbor maintenance 
fees). We selected Poland as the surrogate country for the reasons 
explained in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below. 
However, where we were unable to find Polish data to value particular 
factors of production, we have valued these inputs using public 
information on the record for India, one of the comparable economies 
identified in the August 4, 2003, Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to 
Audrey Twyman, ``Third Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic 
of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries.'' We valued 
the deductions for foreign inland freight using Indian freight costs. 
Where, as here, a significant portion or all of a specific company's 
ocean freight was provided directly by market economy companies and 
paid for in a market economy currency, we use the reported market 
economy ocean freight values for all U.S. sales made by that company. 
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1) (regulation for the information used to value 
factors of production).

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (``NV'') using a factors-of-production 
methodology if: (1) The subject merchandise is exported from an NME 
country, and (2) the Department finds that the available information 
does not permit the calculation of NV under section 773(a) of the Act. 
We have no basis to determine that the available

[[Page 40616]]

information would permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or 
costs. Therefore, we calculated NV based on factors data in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    Under the factors-of-production methodology, we are required to 
value, to the extent possible, the NME producer's inputs in a market 
economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development 
and that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
    We have followed the guidelines set out in policy bulletin number 
04.1, ``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,'' dated 
March 1, 2004, to determine the appropriate surrogate country. See the 
June 29, 2004, Memorandum to Jeff May from Susan Kuhbach ``Surrogate 
Selection and Valuation--Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from 
China,'' (``Surrogate Country Memo'') for a further discussion of our 
surrogate selection, which is on file in the Department's Central 
Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Department building (``CRU''). 
We chose Poland, a significant producer of the comparable merchandise 
apple juice concentrate, as the primary surrogate on the basis of the 
criteria set out in section 773(c)(4) of the Act, and in 19 CFR 
351.408(b). Although Poland was not identified in the Department's list 
of most comparable economies (see August 4, 2003, Memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen to Audrey Twyman, ``Third Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries''), we were unable to establish that any of the listed 
comparable economies were significant producers of comparable 
merchandise.
    We have applied surrogate values based on publicly available 
information from Poland for the major input, juice apples, as well as 
electricity, factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), and profit ratios. However, because we were unable 
to obtain Polish data to value the other, less significant factors of 
production, we have relied upon public information on the record for 
India and Indonesia, two of the comparable economies identified by the 
Department. For the by-product, pomace, we were able to find only a 
United States value and have used this for these preliminary results. 
Where these surrogate values were not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
inflated the data to the POR using the wholesale price indices 
(``WPI'') published by the International Monetary Fund, unless 
otherwise noted.
    Pursuant to the Department's factors-of-production methodology as 
provided in section 773(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c), we valued 
the respondent's reported factors of production by multiplying them by 
the values below. (For a complete description of the factor values 
used, see the Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach: ``Factors of Production 
Values Used for the Preliminary Results,'' dated June 29, 2004, which 
is on file in the CRU.) The factors of production usage rates were 
calculated based on the weighted-average usage rates for Gansu Tongda, 
Liquan and Binxian.
    Juice Apples: We have valued juice apples using prices of juice 
apples in Poland, covering 39 weeks of the POR, which were provided to 
the Department by the Foreign Agriculture Service (``FAS'') at the U.S. 
Embassy in Warsaw, Poland. This pricing data was obtained by the FAS 
from the Polish Foreign Agricultural Markets Monitoring Unit/Foundation 
for Aid Programs for Agriculture and the Institute of Agricultural 
Economics. The average value of these 39 prices is $57.78 per metric 
ton.
    Processing Agents: We valued pectinex enzyme, pectinase enzyme, 
amylase enzyme, and gelatin for the POR using the World Trade Atlas 
data for India which is based on data reported by the Directorate 
General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics of the Ministry of 
Commerce, which also supplies the same data for the Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: Imports (``Indian import 
statistics'').
    Labor: Pursuant to Sec.  351.408(c)(3) of the Department's 
regulations, we valued labor using the regression-based wage rate for 
the PRC published by Import Administration on its website.
    Electricity and Steam Coal: To value electricity, we used Polish 
industrial electricity rate data from the Energy Prices & Taxes--
Quarterly Statistics (First Quarter 2003) published by the 
International Energy Agency. We were unable to obtain Polish surrogate 
values for steam coal of the specific heat values reported by the PRC 
AJC producers. Therefore, we determined that the most contemporaneous 
and detailed information on the record for steam coal was derived from 
the Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (2001/2002) published by Tata 
Energy Research Institute in India. The data for the Indian domestic 
price of steam coal is contemporaneous with the POR and broken out by 
useful heat value. Thus, we used the Indian figures to value the amount 
for steam coal.
    Factory Overhead, SG&A, and Profit: We derived ratios for factory 
overhead, SG&A, and profit, using the 2002 financial statement of Agros 
Fortuna, a public company in Poland that produces products similar to 
the subject merchandise.
    Packing Materials: We calculated values for aseptic bags, plastic 
liners, and labels using the World Trade Atlas data for India for the 
POR. We converted values from a per kilogram to a per piece basis, 
where necessary.
    For steel drums, we could not find a reliable current Indian value. 
Therefore, we used a 1994 Indonesian price and inflated it using the 
Indonesian WPI.
    Inland Freight Rates: To value truck freight rates, we used an 
April 2002 article from the Iron and Steel Newsletter, which quotes 
information derived from the website, www.infreight.com. With regard to 
rail freight, we based our calculation on posted rail rates from the 
Indian Railways at www.indianrailways.gov.in. We calculated an average 
per kilometer per metric ton rate.
    By-products: As the reported factors included pomace as a by-
product resulting from production of AJC, we have made a deduction to 
the AJC surrogate value to account for the by-product. Because we were 
unable to find reliable Indian values for apple pomace, we used a U.S. 
price as the surrogate value because it is the only pomace value on the 
record of this proceeding. Apple pomace was valued using an April 2000 
study published by the University of Georgia.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminary determine that the following dumping margin exists 
for the period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Producer/exporter                          margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gansu Tongda Fruit Juice and Beverage Company..............         0.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each 
respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative 
review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the 
final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 
Department will issue appraisement

[[Page 40617]]

instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment 
purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the 
subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to that importer.
    All other entries of the subject merchandise during the POR will be 
liquidated at the antidumping duty rate in place at the time of entry 
except for Yantai Oriental Juice Co., Qingdao Nannan Foods Co., 
Sanmenxia Lakeside Fruit Juice Co. Ltd., Shaanxi Haisheng Fresh Fruit 
Juice Co., and SDIC Zhonglu Juice Group Co. which were recently 
excluded from the order on remand and whose entries will be liquidated 
without regard to antidumping duties.
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of 
this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Should the final results of this administrative review not differ 
from these preliminary results, the following cash deposit requirements 
will be effective upon publication of the final results for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the PRC company 
named above, the cash deposit rate for exports to the United States by 
that company will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review, except that, for exporters with de minimis rates, i.e., less 
than 0.50 percent, no deposit will be required; (2) for companies 
previously found to be entitled to a separate rate in a prior segment 
of the proceeding, and for which no review has been requested, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the rate established in the most 
recent review of that company (except for Xian Yang, which had a new 
cash deposit rate of 3.83 percent set effective December 12, 2003); (3) 
for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 51.74 
percent, the PRC country-wide ad-valorem rate; and (4) for non-PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC to the United States, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 42 days after the 
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues 
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Furthermore, as discussed in 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may 
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic 
version included.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: June 29, 2004.
Jeffrey A. May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-15232 Filed 7-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P