Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 50999-51001 [2010-20493]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 2010 / Notices
Comment 29: Inventory Carrying Costs
for Direct Shipments
Comment 30: Financial Ratios
Comment 31: Unreported Sales
Comment 32: Credit Expenses and
Inventory Carrying Costs
Comment 33: Nanjing Nanmu
Comment 34: Labor
[FR Doc. 2010–20499 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
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
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 weightedaverage 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:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Aug 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50999
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
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
51000
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Aug 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
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
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of
Based on our analysis of the
the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for
comments received, we have made
the reviewed companies will be the
certain changes to the margin
rates shown above, except if the rate is
calculations. These changes are
less than 0.50 percent, de minimis
discussed in the relevant sections of the within the meaning of 19 CFR
Decision Memo.
351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be
zero; (2) for previously investigated
Final Results of Review
companies not listed above, the cash
We determine that the following
deposit rate will continue to be the
weighted-average margin percentages
company-specific rate published for the
exist for the period March 1, 2008,
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
through February 28, 2009:
not a firm covered in this review, or the
LTFV investigation, but the
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
margin
will be the rate established for the most
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria,
recent period for the manufacturer of
and Agricultura ..........................
5.26 the merchandise; and (4) the cash
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A ...............
8.13 deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 16.51
Assessment
percent, the all-others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See
The Department shall determine, and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Orange Juice from Brazil, 72 FR 12183
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
(Mar. 9, 2006). These deposit
on all appropriate entries.
requirements shall remain in effect until
We have calculated importer-specific
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 is above de minimis
liquidation of the relevant entries
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
during this review period. Failure to
Department intends to issue assessment comply with this requirement could
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
result in the Secretary’s presumption
date of publication of these final results that reimbursement of antidumping
of review.
duties occurred and the subsequent
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 2010 / Notices
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
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 ByProducts for Fischer
16. Fischer’s Unrealized and Eradication
Expenses
[FR Doc. 2010–20493 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am]
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 Aug 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
RIN 0648–XY05
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper
and Grouper Off the Southern Atlantic
States
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of an
application for an exempted fishing
permit; request for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces the receipt
of an application for an exempted
fishing permit (EFP) from the Gulf and
South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation,
Inc. If granted, the EFP will authorize
the applicants, with certain conditions,
to collect limited numbers of fish and
invertebrates where possession and
retention is restricted or prohibited by
regulations in South Atlantic Federal
waters. This study is intended to
characterize catch and discard mortality
within the South Atlantic commercial
hook-and-line snapper-grouper fishery.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on
September 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the application by any of the
following methods:
• E-mail: Steve.Branstetter@
noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of
the e-mail comment the following
document identifier: ‘‘FNDlEFP’’.
• Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
• Fax: 727–824–5308.
The application and related
documents are available for review
upon written request to any of the above
addresses.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Branstetter, 727–824–5305; fax:
727–824–5308; e-mail:
Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.
SUMMARY:
The EFP is
requested under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and regulations at
50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted
fishing.
The described research is part of the
Cooperative Research Program. The
Cooperative Research Program is a
means of involving commercial and
recreational fishermen in the collection
of fundamental fisheries information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51001
Resource collection efforts support the
development and evaluation of fisheries
management and regulatory options.
The proposed collection for scientific
research involves activities otherwise
prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR 622
implementing the Fishery Management
Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of
the South Atlantic Region. The
applicant requires authorization to
collect limited numbers of snapper and
grouper and other marine resources,
where possession and retention is
otherwise restricted or prohibited by
regulations, for scientific research
activities for a 24–month period
beginning September 2010. Specimens
would be collected from Federal waters
off the east coast of Florida and Federal
waters off the coasts of Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina. Sampling
would occur during normal fishing
operations of the commercial snappergrouper vertical hook-and-line fishery.
Sampling would occur year-round,
collecting as many as 500 fish during
the course of the sampling. Data
collections for this study would support
improved information about the catch,
bycatch, discards, and discard mortality
for species in the snapper-grouper
complex. These data would provide
insight on a stock’s resilience to fishing,
and would help refine estimates of longterm biological productivity of the
stocks. Currently, these data are
unavailable, and it is anticipated that
project results would yield valuable
data within this fishery.
NMFS finds this application warrants
further consideration. Based on a
preliminary review, NMFS intends to
issue an EFP. The limited sampling
program and associated sampling
methodology listed in the EFP is not
expected to impact the fishery stocks;
the estimated 500 fish to be retained in
the 2–year period represents a small
fraction of the average annual landings.
Similarly, the sampling program is not
expected to have an impact on marine
mammals or threatened or endangered
species or their critical habitat in any
manner that has not been considered in
the 2006 biological opinion, the 2007
consultation regarding Acropora, and
the 2008 listing of Acropora critical
habitat, in regard to the existing fishery
management plan. The biological
opinion specifically addresses the
impacts associated with EFPs. It
considers fishing activities authorized
under an EFP within the scope of the
opinion, if those activities do not
significantly increase the overall fishing
effort within the fishery, and fishing is
conducted by commercial or research
vessels, using similar or identical
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50999-51001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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
