[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50176-50179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20563]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-840]


Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, Determination Not To Revoke Antidumping 
Duty Order in Part, and Final No Shipment Determination

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

DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2011.
SUMMARY: On April 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain orange juice (OJ) from Brazil. This 
review covers four producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to 
the United States. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2009, through 
February 28, 2010.
    After analyzing the comments received, we have made certain changes 
in the margin calculations. Therefore,

[[Page 50177]]

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.''
    Further, we have determined not to revoke the antidumping duty 
order with respect to OJ 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 7, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the 2009-2010 administrative review of 
antidumping duty order on certain OJ 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, 76 FR 19315 (Apr. 7, 2011) (Preliminary Results). 
Also in April, after the issuance of the preliminary results, the 
Department issued, and Cutrale submitted responses to, two additional 
supplemental questionnaires.
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
In May 2011, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e., 
Florida Citrus Mutual and Citrus World Inc.), Cutrale, and Fischer S.A. 
Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura (Fischer). We received rebuttal 
briefs from the petitioners 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, 2009, through February 28, 2010.

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 whether: (1) The company 
in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a 
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) 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) 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, 2010, 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 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, 76 FR at 19315.
    After analyzing Cutrale's request for revocation (as more fully 
explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this 
notice (the Decision Memo)), we find that it does not meet all of the 
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). In the second and third 
administrative reviews, we found that Cutrale sold subject merchandise 
at less than NV. See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 40167 (Aug. 11, 2009); 
and Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping 
Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 50999 (Aug. 18, 2010). Accordingly, Cutrale 
did not demonstrate that it did not sell the subject merchandise at 
less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years.
    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

[[Page 50178]]

we have not revoked the order with respect to merchandise produced and 
exported by Cutrale. For further discussion of this issue, see the 
Decision Memo at Comment 3.

Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received no-shipment claims 
from two companies named in the notice of initiation of this review, 
Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) (Coinbra-Frutesp) and Montecitrus Trading S.A. 
(Montecitrus), and we confirmed their claims with U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP). Because we find that the record indicates that 
Coinbra-Frutesp and Montecitrus did not export subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR, we determine that they had no 
reviewable transactions during the POR.
    As we stated in the Preliminary Results, our former practice 
concerning respondents submitting timely no-shipment certifications was 
to rescind the administrative review with respect to those companies if 
we were able to confirm the no-shipment certifications through a no-
shipment inquiry with CBP. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997); see also 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9, 
2010). As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instructed CBP 
to liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit 
rate in effect on the date of entry.
    In our May 6, 2003, clarification of the ``automatic assessment'' 
regulation, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative 
review demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through 
resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such 
entries at the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy 
Notice).
    As noted in the Preliminary Results, because ``as entered'' 
liquidation instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the May 
2003 clarification was intended to address, we find it appropriate in 
this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of 
merchandise produced by Coinbra-Futesp or Montecitrus and exported by 
other parties at the all-others rate. In addition, we continue to find 
that it is more consistent with the May 2003 clarification not to 
rescind the review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to 
complete the review with respect to these two companies and issue 
appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this 
administrative review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of this 
notice below.

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.
    For purposes of these final results, we continue to find 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 7046, 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, 2009, through February 28, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Manufacturer/exporter                   Percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coinbra-Frutesp (SA)..........................                        *
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and                              3.97
 Agricultura..................................
Montecitrus Trading S.A.......................                        *
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A......................        0.42 (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and 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 Assessment Policy Notice, 68 FR 23954. This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by companies included in these final

[[Page 50179]]

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 OJ 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 
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: August 5, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

    1. Offsetting of Negative Margins.
    2. Capping Interest Revenue by Credit Expenses.
    3. Request for Revocation by Cutrale.
    4. U.S. Brix Level.
    5. Inventory Carrying Costs for Cutrale's U.S. Sales.
    6. Calculation of Cutrale's U.S. Indirect Selling Expense Rate.
    7. Calculation of Cutrale's General and Administrative Expense 
Rate.
    8. Calculation of Fischer's International Freight Expenses.
    9. Use of Fischer's Home Market Sample Sales in Calculating 
Normal Value and Constructed Value Profit.
[FR Doc. 2011-20563 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P