[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