Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46584-46586 [E8-18479]

Download as PDF 46584 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices Dated: August 6, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8–18453 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] II. Method of Collection BILLING CODE 3510–07–P OMB Control Number: 0625–0143. Form Number(s): ITA–4096P. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000. Estimated Time per Response: 5–10 minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,667. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. Sent via e-mail and then completed by client electronically. III. Data DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Service Order Form International Trade Administration. AGENCY: ACTION: Notice. IV. Request for Comments The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. SUMMARY: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 10, 2008. DATES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Suzan Winters—(202) 482– 6042, Suzan.Winters@mail.doc.gov, Fax: (202) 482–2599. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: August 6, 2008 Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8–18452 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES I. Abstract The International Trade Administration’s U.S. Commercial Service (CS) is mandated by Congress to help U.S. businesses, particularly smalland medium-sized companies, export their products and services to global markets. As part of its mission, CS provides market entry/expansion services and trade events to U.S. companies. The Service Order Form (formerly the Export Information Services Order Form) is needed to collect information to enable small and medium size companies to order CS services, which enhance their ability to begin exporting or to expand their existing exporting efforts. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:22 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–351–840) Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2008. SUMMARY: On April 7, 2008, the Department of Commerce published its preliminary results of the administrative AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 review of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. The period of review (POR) is August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007. We are rescinding the review with respect to one company because this company had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the 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.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, 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) 482–3874 or (202) 482– 0049, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 7, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 18773 (Apr. 7, 2008) (Preliminary Results). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In May 2008, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e., Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Citrus World Inc., and Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation) and the respondents (i.e., Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura (Fischer) and Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale)). Also in May 2008, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and the respondents. 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 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices (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) (Coinbra– Frutesp), 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. rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES Period of Review The POR is August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007. Partial Rescission of Review On May 1, 2007, Coinbra–Frutesp informed the Department that it had no entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). See the March 31, 2008, memorandum to the file from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, ‘‘Placing Customs Entry Data on the Record of the 2005–2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil.’’ Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department’s practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to Coinbra–Frutesp. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:22 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005). 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, 73 FR at 18777. For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (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 as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal 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. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46585 Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted–average margin percentages exist for the period August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007: Manufacturer/Exporter Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura ................. Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. Percent Margin 4.81 0.45 Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Cutrale and Fischer reported the entered value for some or all of their U.S. sales, 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 for which entered value was reported. For Fischer’s U.S. sales reported without entered values, we have calculated importer–specific per–unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer–specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is 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. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 46586 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– others rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES 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 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/ VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:01 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 and section 351.221(b)(5) of the Department’s regulations. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Dated: August 5, 2008. David M. Spooner. Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0414 or (202) 482– 3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Issues 1. Offsetting of Negative Margins 2. Granting an Offset for U.S. Duty Drawback 3. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results 4. Universe of Reviewed U.S. Sales Transactions Company–Specific Issues 5. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset for Cutrale 6. Treating Sales to One of Cutrale’s Home Market Customers as Affiliated Party Transactions 7. Calculation of CEP Profit for Cutrale 8. The Calculation of the Denominator used in the General and Administrative (G&A) and Financial Expense Ratios for Cutrale 9. Valuation of Fruit Purchased from Affiliates for Cutrale 10. Inclusion of Export Financing Expenses in the Calculation of the Financial Expense Ratio for Cutrale 11. Unit of Measure for Comparison Purposes for NFC for Fischer 12. Product Matching Methodology for Fischer 13. Granting a Quantity Adjustment for Fischer’s NFC Sales 14. Fischer’s Home Market NFC Sales Used for Comparison Purposes 15. The Application of Inventory Carrying Costs by Control Number for Fischer 16. The Calculation of Harbor Maintenance Fees for One U.S. Sales Observation for Fischer 17. Request to Treat Two of Fischer’s U.S. Sales as Export Price Transactions 18. Fischer’s Raw Material Cost Allocation Methodology 19. Calculation of Fischer’s G&A Expense Ratio [FR Doc. E8–18479 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 A–570–933 Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Frontseating Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China AGENCY: Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S International Trade Administration Postponement of Preliminary Determination On April 8, 2008, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated an antidumping duty investigation on frontseating service valves from the People’s Republic of China. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Frontseating Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 20250 (April 15, 2008).1 The notice of initiation stated that the Department would issue its preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of issuance of the initiation, in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The preliminary determination is currently due no later than August 26, 2008. On July 30, 2008, the petitioner, Parker–Hannifin Corporation, made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e), for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. Because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination under by 50 days to no later than October 15, 2008. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 1 The Department issued the initiation notice on April 8, 2008, and the initiation was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2008. E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46584-46586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-351-840)


Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2008.
SUMMARY: On April 7, 2008, the Department of Commerce published its 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. The period of review 
(POR) is August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007. We are rescinding 
the review with respect to one company because this company had no 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the 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.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, 
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-
3874 or (202) 482-0049, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 7, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil. See Certain Orange 
Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 18773 (Apr. 7, 2008) 
(Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
In May 2008, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e., 
Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Citrus World Inc., and Southern 
Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation) and the respondents (i.e., 
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura (Fischer) and 
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale)). Also in May 2008, we received 
rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and the respondents.
    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

[[Page 46585]]

(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) (Coinbra-
Frutesp), 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 August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007.

Partial Rescission of Review

    On May 1, 2007, Coinbra-Frutesp informed the Department that it had 
no entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
We have confirmed this with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 
See the March 31, 2008, memorandum to the file from Elizabeth Eastwood 
entitled, ``Placing Customs Entry Data on the Record of the 2005-2007 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Orange Juice from 
Brazil.'' Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and 
consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review 
with respect to Coinbra-Frutesp. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in 
Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005).

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, 73 FR at 18777. For these final results, 
we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the 
Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (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 as the basis for determining normal value 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal 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 August 24, 2005, through February 28, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura...                4.81
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A............................                0.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Cutrale and Fischer 
reported the entered value for some or all of their U.S. sales, 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 for which 
entered value was reported. For Fischer's U.S. sales reported without 
entered values, we have calculated importer-specific per-unit duty 
assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total 
quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates 
are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios 
based on the estimated entered value.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is 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. This clarification will also apply to 
POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we 
are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, 
because these companies certified that

[[Page 46586]]

they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had 
knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in 
the 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 
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 and section 
351.221(b)(5) of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
David M. Spooner.
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Granting an Offset for U.S. Duty Drawback
3. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results
4. Universe of Reviewed U.S. Sales Transactions

Company-Specific Issues

5. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset for Cutrale
6. Treating Sales to One of Cutrale's Home Market Customers as 
Affiliated Party Transactions
7. Calculation of CEP Profit for Cutrale
8. The Calculation of the Denominator used in the General and 
Administrative (G&A) and Financial Expense Ratios for Cutrale
9. Valuation of Fruit Purchased from Affiliates for Cutrale
10. Inclusion of Export Financing Expenses in the Calculation of the 
Financial Expense Ratio for Cutrale
11. Unit of Measure for Comparison Purposes for NFC for Fischer
12. Product Matching Methodology for Fischer
13. Granting a Quantity Adjustment for Fischer's NFC Sales
14. Fischer's Home Market NFC Sales Used for Comparison Purposes
15. The Application of Inventory Carrying Costs by Control Number for 
Fischer
16. The Calculation of Harbor Maintenance Fees for One U.S. Sales 
Observation for Fischer
17. Request to Treat Two of Fischer's U.S. Sales as Export Price 
Transactions
18. Fischer's Raw Material Cost Allocation Methodology
19. Calculation of Fischer's G&A Expense Ratio
[FR Doc. E8-18479 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S