Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 40167-40168 [E9-19223]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: August 4, 2009. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. E9–19224 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Background On April 6, 2009, 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 of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 15438 (Apr. 6, 2009) (Preliminary Results). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In May 2009, 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 2009, 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). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Scope of the Order International Trade Administration 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 [A–351–840] sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 6, 2009, 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 March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008. 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.’’ EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Miriam Eqab, 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– 3693, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:51 Aug 10, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40167 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, 2007, through February 29, 2008. 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, 74 FR at 15442. 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 E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 40168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Notices sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES 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. 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 Changes Since the Preliminary Results the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the Based on our analysis of the reviewed companies will be the rates comments received, we have made shown above, except if the rate is less certain changes to the margin than 0.50 percent, de minimis within calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 2) for Decision Memo. previously investigated companies not Final Results of Review listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific We determine that the following rate published for the most recent weighted–average margin percentages period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm exist for the period March 1, 2007, covered in this review, or the LTFV through February 29, 2008: investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin established for the most recent period Fischer S.A. Comercio, for the manufacturer of the Industria, and merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit Agricultura ................. 0.00 rate for all other manufacturers or Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. 2.17 exporters will continue to be 16.51 percent, the all–others rate established Assessment in the LTFV investigation. See The Department shall determine, and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on Orange Juice from Brazil, 72 FR 12183 all appropriate entries. (Mar. 9, 2006). These deposit We have calculated importer–specific requirements shall remain in effect until ad valorem duty assessment rates based further notice. on the ratio of the total amount of Notification to Importers antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered This notice serves as a final reminder value of the sales. We will instruct CBP to importers of their responsibility, to assess antidumping duties on all under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a appropriate entries covered by this certificate regarding the reimbursement review if any importer–specific of antidumping duties prior to assessment rate calculated in the final liquidation of the relevant entries results of this review is above de during this review period. Failure to minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). comply with this requirement could The Department intends to issue result in the Secretary’s presumption assessment instructions to CBP 15 days that reimbursement of antidumping after the date of publication of these duties occurred and the subsequent final results of review. assessment of double antidumping The Department clarified its duties. ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on Notification to Interested Parties May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: This notice serves as the only Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 reminder to parties subject to FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This administrative protective order (APO) of clarification will apply to entries of their responsibility concerning the subject merchandise during the POR disposition of proprietary information produced by companies included in disclosed under APO in accordance these final results of review for which with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely the reviewed companies did not know written notification of return/ their merchandise was destined for the destruction of APO materials or United States. In such instances, we will conversion to judicial protective order is instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed hereby requested. Failure to comply entries at the all–others rate established with the regulations and the terms of an in the less–than-fair–value (LTFV) APO is a sanctionable violation. investigation if there is no rate for the We are issuing and publishing these intermediate company(ies) involved in results of review in accordance with the transaction. sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:51 Aug 10, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Act and section 351.221(b)(5) of the Department’s regulations. Dated: August 4, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum 1. Offsetting of Negative Margins 2. Constructed Export Price Offset for Cutrale 3. Capping of Certain Revenues Received by Cutrale by the Amount of Reported Expenses 4. Calculation of the Indirect Selling Expense Ratios for Cutrale’s U.S. Affilates, Citrus Products Inc. and Cutrale Citrus Juices 5. Ministerial Errors for Cutrale 6. Calculation of the Denominator used in the General and Administrative (G&A) and Financial Expense Ratios for Cutrale 7. Classification of Amortized Goodwill for Cutrale 8. Including Adiantamentos Sobre Contraltos de Cambio Financing Costs in Cutrale’s Financial Expense Ratio 9. Conversion of U.S. Sales of NFC for Fischer from Gallons to Pounds Solids 10. Calculation of International Freight Expenses for Fischer 11. Window Period Sales for Fischer 12. Calculation of Fischer’s U.S. Dollar Borrowing Rate 13. Raw Material Cost–Allocation Methodology for Fischer 14. Capitalized Costs Related to the Videira Plant for Fischer 15. Omission of Certain Costs in Calculating Fischer’s Cost of Manufacture 16. Calculation of the G&A Expense Ratio for Fischer 17. Calculation of the Financial Expense Ratio for Fischer [FR Doc. E9–19223 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XQ77 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Administrative Committee will hold meetings. E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40167-40168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-840]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 6, 2009, 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 March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008.
    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.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Miriam Eqab, 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) 482-3693, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 6, 2009, 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 of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 15438 (Apr. 6, 2009) (Preliminary 
Results).
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
In May 2009, 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 2009, 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 (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, 2007, through February 29, 2008.

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, 74 FR at 15442. 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

[[Page 40168]]

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, 2007, through February 29, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura...                0.00
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A............................                2.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 calculated in the final results of this review 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 
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 4, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum

1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Constructed Export Price Offset for Cutrale
3. Capping of Certain Revenues Received by Cutrale by the Amount of 
Reported Expenses
4. Calculation of the Indirect Selling Expense Ratios for Cutrale's 
U.S. Affilates, Citrus Products Inc. and Cutrale Citrus Juices
5. Ministerial Errors for Cutrale
6. Calculation of the Denominator used in the General and 
Administrative (G&A) and Financial Expense Ratios for Cutrale
7. Classification of Amortized Goodwill for Cutrale
8. Including Adiantamentos Sobre Contraltos de Cambio Financing Costs 
in Cutrale's Financial Expense Ratio
9. Conversion of U.S. Sales of NFC for Fischer from Gallons to Pounds 
Solids
10. Calculation of International Freight Expenses for Fischer
11. Window Period Sales for Fischer
12. Calculation of Fischer's U.S. Dollar Borrowing Rate
13. Raw Material Cost-Allocation Methodology for Fischer
14. Capitalized Costs Related to the Videira Plant for Fischer
15. Omission of Certain Costs in Calculating Fischer's Cost of 
Manufacture
16. Calculation of the G&A Expense Ratio for Fischer
17. Calculation of the Financial Expense Ratio for Fischer
[FR Doc. E9-19223 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S