Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Determination Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, and Final No Shipment Determination, 50176-50179 [2011-20563]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50176
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices
warrant an initiation of a formal anticircumvention inquiry. In accordance
with section 351.225(e) of the
Department’s regulations, if the
Department finds that the issue of
whether a product is included within
the scope of an order cannot be
determined based solely upon the
application and the descriptions of the
merchandise, the Department will notify
by mail all parties on the Department’s
scope service list of the initiation of a
scope inquiry, including an anticircumvention inquiry. In addition, in
accordance with section 351.225(f)(1)(ii)
of the Department’s regulations, a notice
of the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry issued under
paragraph (e) of this section includes a
description of the product that is the
subject of the anti-circumvention
inquiry—drill pipe that contain the
characteristics as provided in the scope
of the Drill Pipe Orders, and an
explanation of the reasons for the
Department’s decision to initiate an
anti-circumvention inquiry, as provided
below.
With regard to whether the
merchandise from the UAE is of the
same class or kind as the merchandise
produced in the PRC, the Petitioners
have presented information to the
Department indicating that, pursuant to
section 781(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the
merchandise being exported from the
UAE by Almansoori/Hilong may be of
the same class or kind as drill pipe
produced in the PRC, which is subject
to the Drill Pipe Orders. Consequently,
the Department finds that the
Petitioners have provided sufficient
information in their request regarding
the class of kind of merchandise to
support the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry.
With regard to completion or
assembly of merchandise in a foreign
country, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B)
of the Act, the Petitioners have also
presented information to the
Department indicating that the drill
pipe exported from the UAE to the
United States is assembled by
Almansoori/Hilong in the UAE from
pipe and tool joints produced in the
PRC. We find that the information
presented by the Petitioners regarding
this criterion supports their request to
initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry.
The Department believes that the
Petitioners sufficiently addressed the
factors described in section 781(b)(2) of
the Act regarding whether the friction
welding of pipe to tool joints in the UAE
is minor or insignificant. Specifically, in
support of their argument, the
Petitioners relied on their own
experience and surrogate values from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Aug 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
the less-than-fair-value investigation.
Thus, we find that the information
presented by the Petitioners supports
their request to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, we
find that the Petitioners’ submissions
suggest that (1) little investment has
been made by Hilong in its drill pipe
welding operations in the UAE, (2)
Hilong has fully integrated production
facilities in the PRC, and therefore,
research and development presumably
takes place in the PRC rather than the
UAE, (3) the friction welding of pipe to
tool joints in the UAE does not alter the
fundamental characteristics of the drill
pipe, nor does it remove it from the
scope of the Drill Pipe Orders, (4)
Almansoori/Hilong has a lower
investment level than companies that
manufacture pipe and tool joints and (5)
friction welding pipe to tool joints adds
little value to the merchandise imported
to the United States. Our analysis will
focus on Almansoori/Hilong’s assembly
operations in the UAE and, in the
context of this proceeding, we will
closely examine the manner in which
this company’s processing materials are
obtained, whether those materials are
considered subject to the scope of the
Drill Pipe Orders, and the extent of
processing in the UAE, as well as the
manner in which production and sales
relationships are conducted with the
alleged PRC and U.S. affiliates.
With respect to the value of the
merchandise produced in the PRC,
pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(D) of the
Act, the Petitioners relied on one of its
member’s information and arguments in
the ‘‘minor or insignificant process’’
portion of its anti-circumvention request
to indicate that the value of the pipe and
tool joint may be significant relative to
the total value of finished drill pipe
exported to the United States. We find
that the information adequately meets
the requirements of this factor, as
discussed above, for the purposes of
initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry.
Finally, the Petitioners argue that
pursuant to section 781(b)(3) of the Act
the Department considers the pattern of
trade, affiliation, and subsequent import
volumes as factors in determining
whether to initiate the anticircumvention inquiry. Here, we find
that imports of drill pipe from the PRC
decreased after the initiation of the
investigations, that the Almansoori/
Hilong joint venture in the UAE is
affiliated to Hilong, and that the U.S.
import data submitted by the Petitioners
suggests that imports of drill pipe have
risen since the investigations.
Accordingly, based on the Petitioners’
submissions, we have determined that
we have a sufficient basis to initiate a
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
formal anti-circumvention inquiry
concerning the Drill Pipe Orders,
pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. In
accordance with section 351.225(l)(2) of
the Department’s regulations, if the
Department issues a preliminary
affirmative determination, we will then
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to suspend liquidation and
require a cash deposit of estimated
duties on the merchandise.
This anti-circumvention inquiry
covers Hilong and its affiliated
companies in the UAE and United
States. If, within sufficient time, the
Department receives a formal request
from an interested party regarding
potential circumvention of the Drill Pipe
Orders by other UAE companies, we
will consider conducting additional
inquiries concurrently.
The Department will establish a
schedule for questionnaires and
comments on the issues. In accordance
with section 351.225(f)(5), the
Department intends to issue its final
determination within 300 days of the
date of publication of this initiation.
This notice is published in accordance
with section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 5, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–20570 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–840]
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, Determination
Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty
Order in Part, and Final No Shipment
Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2011.
SUMMARY: On April 7, 2011, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published its preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
orange juice (OJ) from Brazil. This
review covers four producers/exporters
of the subject merchandise to the United
States. The period of review (POR) is
March 1, 2009, through February 28,
2010.
After analyzing the comments
received, we have made certain changes
in the margin calculations. Therefore,
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices
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.’’
Further, we have determined not to
revoke the antidumping duty order with
respect to OJ from Brazil produced and
exported by Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A.
(Cutrale).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hector Rodriguez or Blaine Wiltse, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0629 or (202) 482–
6345, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 7, 2011, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the 2009–2010
administrative review of antidumping
duty order on certain OJ from Brazil.
See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice
of Intent Not to Revoke Antidumping
Duty Order in Part, 76 FR 19315 (Apr.
7, 2011) (Preliminary Results). Also in
April, after the issuance of the
preliminary results, the Department
issued, and Cutrale submitted responses
to, two additional supplemental
questionnaires.
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of review. In May
2011, we received case briefs from the
petitioners (i.e., Florida Citrus Mutual
and Citrus World Inc.), Cutrale, and
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and
Agricultura (Fischer). We received
rebuttal briefs from the petitioners and
Cutrale.
The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Aug 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from
Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order;
Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from
Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987).
Therefore, the scope of this order with
regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM
produced and/or exported by those
companies which were excluded or
revoked from the pre-existing
antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil
as of December 27, 2004. Those
companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada,
Coinbra-Frutesp (SA), Cutrale, Fischer,
and Montecitrus Trading S.A.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are reconstituted orange juice and
frozen concentrated orange juice for
retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange
juice is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, by adding
water, oils and essences to the orange
juice concentrate. FCOJR is
concentrated orange juice, typically at
42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in
retail-sized containers ready for sale to
consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer
product, is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk
manufacturer’s product.
The subject merchandise is currently
classifiable under subheadings
2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and
2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
These HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and for customs
purposes only and are not dispositive.
Rather, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is March 1, 2009, through
February 28, 2010.
Determination Not To Revoke Order, In
Part
The Department may revoke, in whole
or in part, an antidumping duty order
upon completion of a review under
section 751 of the Act. While Congress
has not specified the procedures that the
Department must follow in revoking an
order, the Department has developed a
procedure for revocation that is
described in 19 CFR 351.222. This
regulation requires, inter alia, that a
company requesting revocation must
submit the following: (1) A certification
that the company has sold the subject
merchandise at not less than normal
value (NV) in the current review period
and that the company will not sell
subject merchandise at less than NV in
the future; (2) a certification that the
company sold commercial quantities of
the subject merchandise to the United
States in each of the three years forming
the basis of the request; and (3) an
agreement to immediate reinstatement
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50177
of the order if the Department concludes
that the company, subsequent to the
revocation, sold subject merchandise at
less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
Upon receipt of such a request, the
Department will consider whether: (1)
The company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than NV
for a period of at least three consecutive
years; (2) the company has agreed in
writing to its immediate reinstatement
in the order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the
Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation,
sold the subject merchandise at less
than NV; and (3) the continued
application of the antidumping duty
order is otherwise necessary to offset
dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
As we noted in the Preliminary
Results, on March 31, 2010, Cutrale
requested revocation of the antidumping
duty order with respect to its sales of
subject merchandise, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.222(b). This request was
accompanied by certification that: (1)
Cutrale sold the subject merchandise at
not less than NV during the current POR
and will not sell the merchandise at less
than NV in the future; and (2) it sold
subject merchandise to the United
States in commercial quantities for a
period of at least three consecutive
years. Cutrale also agreed to immediate
reinstatement of the antidumping duty
order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the
Department concludes that, subsequent
to the revocation, it sold the subject
merchandise at less than NV. See
Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 19315.
After analyzing Cutrale’s request for
revocation (as more fully explained in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
accompanying this notice (the Decision
Memo)), we find that it does not meet
all of the criteria under 19 CFR
351.222(b). In the second and third
administrative reviews, we found that
Cutrale sold subject merchandise at less
than NV. See Certain Orange Juice from
Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
40167 (Aug. 11, 2009); and Certain
Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Notice of Intent Not To
Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in
Part, 75 FR 50999 (Aug. 18, 2010).
Accordingly, Cutrale did not
demonstrate that it did not sell the
subject merchandise at less than NV for
a period of at least three consecutive
years.
Therefore, we determine that Cutrale
does not qualify for revocation of the
order on certain orange juice pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and as a result
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
50178
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice).
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation
instructions do not alleviate the
concerns which the May 2003
clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to
instruct CBP to liquidate any existing
entries of merchandise produced by
Coinbra-Futesp or Montecitrus and
exported by other parties at the allothers rate. In addition, we continue to
find that it is more consistent with the
May 2003 clarification not to rescind the
review in part in these circumstances
but, rather, to complete the review with
respect to these two companies and
issue appropriate instructions to CBP
based on the final results of this
administrative review. See the
‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this
notice below.
we have not revoked the order with
respect to merchandise produced and
exported by Cutrale. For further
discussion of this issue, see the Decision
Memo at Comment 3.
Determination of No Shipments
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
we received no-shipment claims from
two companies named in the notice of
initiation of this review, CoinbraFrutesp (SA) (Coinbra-Frutesp) and
Montecitrus Trading S.A. (Montecitrus),
and we confirmed their claims with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Because we find that the record
indicates that Coinbra-Frutesp and
Montecitrus did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR, we determine that they had no
reviewable transactions during the POR.
As we stated in the Preliminary
Results, our former practice concerning
respondents submitting timely noshipment certifications was to rescind
the administrative review with respect
to those companies if we were able to
confirm the no-shipment certifications
through a no-shipment inquiry with
CBP. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR
27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997); see also
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Taiwan: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9,
2010). As a result, in such
circumstances, we normally instructed
CBP to liquidate any entries from the
no-shipment company at the deposit
rate in effect on the date of entry.
In our May 6, 2003, clarification of the
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation, we
explained that, where respondents in an
administrative review demonstrate that
they had no knowledge of sales through
resellers to the United States, we would
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the
proceeding. See Antidumping and
Cost of Production
As discussed in the preliminary
results, we conducted an investigation
to determine whether Cutrale and
Fischer made home market sales of the
foreign like product during the POR at
prices below their costs of production
(COP) within the meaning of section
773(b) of the Act. See Preliminary
Results. For these final results, we
performed the cost test following the
same methodology as in the Preliminary
Results, except as discussed in the
Decision Memo.
We found 20 percent or more of each
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the reporting period were at
prices less than the weighted-average
COP for this period. Thus, we
determined that these below-cost sales
were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’
within an extended period of time and
at prices which did not permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in the normal course of
trade. See sections 773(b)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
For purposes of these final results, we
continue to find that Cutrale and
Fischer made below-cost sales not in the
ordinary course of trade. Consequently,
we disregarded these sales for each
respondent and used the remaining
sales (if any) as the basis for
determining NV, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were
no home market sales made in the
ordinary course of trade, we based NV
on constructed value.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to this administrative review,
and to which we have responded, are
listed in the Appendix to this notice and
addressed in the Decision Memo, which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, room 7046, of
the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at 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, 2009,
through February 28, 2010:
Manufacturer/exporter
Percent margin
Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) ...........................................................................................................................................................
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura ..............................................................................................................
Montecitrus Trading S.A. .....................................................................................................................................................
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ......................................................................................................................................................
*
3.97
*
0.42 (de minimis)
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Aug 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
date of publication of these final results
of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy
Notice, 68 FR 23954. This clarification
will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced
by companies included in these final
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2011 / Notices
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.
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.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of OJ from Brazil entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided for
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates shown
above, except if the rate is less than 0.50
percent, de minimis within the meaning
of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash
deposit will be zero; (2) for previously
investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, or the LTFV investigation, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the
most recent period for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 16.51
percent, the all-others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Orange Juice from Brazil, 72 FR 12183
(Mar. 9, 2006). These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Dated: August 5, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Aug 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
Appendix—Issues in Decision
Memorandum
1. Offsetting of Negative Margins.
2. Capping Interest Revenue by Credit
Expenses.
3. Request for Revocation by Cutrale.
4. U.S. Brix Level.
5. Inventory Carrying Costs for Cutrale’s
U.S. Sales.
6. Calculation of Cutrale’s U.S. Indirect
Selling Expense Rate.
7. Calculation of Cutrale’s General and
Administrative Expense Rate.
8. Calculation of Fischer’s International
Freight Expenses.
9. Use of Fischer’s Home Market Sample
Sales in Calculating Normal Value and
Constructed Value Profit.
[FR Doc. 2011–20563 Filed 8–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory
Board
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of an opportunity to
apply for membership on the U.S.
Travel and Tourism Advisory Board.
AGENCY:
The Department of Commerce
is currently seeking applications for
membership on the U.S. Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board (Board). The
purpose of the Board is to advise the
Secretary of Commerce on matters
relating to the travel and tourism
industry.
SUMMARY:
All applications must be
received by the Office of Advisory
Committees by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time (EDT) on September 16, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Please submit application
information by mail to Jennifer Pilat,
Office of Advisory Committees, U.S.
Travel and Tourism Advisory Board
Executive Secretariat, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 4043, 1401
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50179
DC 20230 or via e-mail to oacie@trade.
gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Pilat, U.S. Travel and Tourism
Advisory Board Executive Secretariat,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202–
482–5896, e-mail: jennifer.pilat@trade.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Travel and Tourism Advisory Board
(Board) is established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5
U.S.C. App. (FACA), and advises the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on
matters relating to the U.S. travel and
tourism industry pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1512. The Board provides a means of
ensuring regular contact between the
U.S. Government and the travel and
tourism industry. The Board advises the
Secretary on government policies and
programs that affect United States travel
and tourism, and the Board serves as a
forum for discussing and proposing
solutions to industry-related problems.
The Board acts as a liaison among the
stakeholders represented by the
membership and provides a forum for
those stakeholders on current and
emerging issues in the travel and
tourism sector. The Board recommends
ways to ensure that the United States
remains the preeminent destination for
international visitation and tourism
throughout the world.
The Office of Advisory Committees is
accepting applications for Board
members. Members shall represent
companies and organizations in the
travel and tourism sector from a broad
range of products and services,
company sizes, and geographic
locations and shall be drawn from large,
medium, and small travel and tourism
companies, private-sector organizations
involved in the export of travel and
tourism-related products and services,
and other tourism-related entities.
Each Board member shall serve as the
representative of a U.S. company in the
travel and tourism industry, a U.S.
organization involved in the export of
travel and tourism-related products and
services, or a tourism-related U.S.
entity. For eligibility purposes, a ‘‘U.S.
company’’ is a for-profit firm that is
incorporated in the United States (or an
unincorporated U.S. firm with its
principal place of business in the
United States) that is controlled by U.S.
citizens or by other U.S. companies. A
company is not a U.S. company if 50
percent plus one share of its stock (if a
corporation, or a similar ownership
interest of an unincorporated entity) is
known to be controlled, directly or
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50176-50179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20563]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-840]
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, Determination Not To Revoke Antidumping
Duty Order in Part, and Final No Shipment Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 12, 2011.
SUMMARY: On April 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain orange juice (OJ) from Brazil. This
review covers four producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to
the United States. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2009, through
February 28, 2010.
After analyzing the comments received, we have made certain changes
in the margin calculations. Therefore,
[[Page 50177]]
these final results differ from the preliminary results. The final
weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed
below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
Further, we have determined not to revoke the antidumping duty
order with respect to OJ from Brazil produced and exported by
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hector Rodriguez or Blaine Wiltse, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0629 or (202) 482-6345, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 7, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of the 2009-2010 administrative review of
antidumping duty order on certain OJ from Brazil. See Certain Orange
Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke Antidumping
Duty Order in Part, 76 FR 19315 (Apr. 7, 2011) (Preliminary Results).
Also in April, after the issuance of the preliminary results, the
Department issued, and Cutrale submitted responses to, two additional
supplemental questionnaires.
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
In May 2011, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e.,
Florida Citrus Mutual and Citrus World Inc.), Cutrale, and Fischer S.A.
Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura (Fischer). We received rebuttal
briefs from the petitioners and Cutrale.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport
and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms: (1)
Frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred
to as frozen concentrated orange juice for manufacture (FCOJM); and (2)
pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been
concentrated, referred to as not-from-concentrate (NFC). At the time of
the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty
order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil. See
Antidumping Duty Order; Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil,
52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). Therefore, the scope of this order with
regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM produced and/or exported by those
companies which were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing
antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. Those
companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada, Coinbra-Frutesp (SA), Cutrale,
Fischer, and Montecitrus Trading S.A.
Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice
and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted
orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by
adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR
is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42 Brix, in a frozen state,
packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a
finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of
FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings
2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not
dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of the order
is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is March 1, 2009, through February 28, 2010.
Determination Not To Revoke Order, In Part
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation
requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit
the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the
subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current
review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at
less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold
commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States
in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an
agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject
merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of
such a request, the Department will consider whether: (1) The company
in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed
in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any
exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the
subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) the continued application
of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping.
See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
As we noted in the Preliminary Results, on March 31, 2010, Cutrale
requested revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its
sales of subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). This
request was accompanied by certification that: (1) Cutrale sold the
subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will
not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future; and (2) it sold
subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a
period of at least three consecutive years. Cutrale also agreed to
immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any
exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department
concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, it sold the subject
merchandise at less than NV. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 19315.
After analyzing Cutrale's request for revocation (as more fully
explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this
notice (the Decision Memo)), we find that it does not meet all of the
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). In the second and third
administrative reviews, we found that Cutrale sold subject merchandise
at less than NV. See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 40167 (Aug. 11, 2009);
and Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping
Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 50999 (Aug. 18, 2010). Accordingly, Cutrale
did not demonstrate that it did not sell the subject merchandise at
less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years.
Therefore, we determine that Cutrale does not qualify for
revocation of the order on certain orange juice pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), and as a result
[[Page 50178]]
we have not revoked the order with respect to merchandise produced and
exported by Cutrale. For further discussion of this issue, see the
Decision Memo at Comment 3.
Determination of No Shipments
As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received no-shipment claims
from two companies named in the notice of initiation of this review,
Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) (Coinbra-Frutesp) and Montecitrus Trading S.A.
(Montecitrus), and we confirmed their claims with U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP). Because we find that the record indicates that
Coinbra-Frutesp and Montecitrus did not export subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR, we determine that they had no
reviewable transactions during the POR.
As we stated in the Preliminary Results, our former practice
concerning respondents submitting timely no-shipment certifications was
to rescind the administrative review with respect to those companies if
we were able to confirm the no-shipment certifications through a no-
shipment inquiry with CBP. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997); see also
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9,
2010). As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instructed CBP
to liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit
rate in effect on the date of entry.
In our May 6, 2003, clarification of the ``automatic assessment''
regulation, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative
review demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through
resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such
entries at the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy
Notice).
As noted in the Preliminary Results, because ``as entered''
liquidation instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the May
2003 clarification was intended to address, we find it appropriate in
this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of
merchandise produced by Coinbra-Futesp or Montecitrus and exported by
other parties at the all-others rate. In addition, we continue to find
that it is more consistent with the May 2003 clarification not to
rescind the review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to
complete the review with respect to these two companies and issue
appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this
administrative review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of this
notice below.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether Cutrale and Fischer made home market
sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their
costs of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the
Act. See Preliminary Results. For these final results, we performed the
cost test following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results,
except as discussed in the Decision Memo.
We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of
trade. See sections 773(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.
For purposes of these final results, we continue to find that
Cutrale and Fischer made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of
trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and
used the remaining sales (if any) as the basis for determining NV,
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were no home
market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, we based NV on
constructed value.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in
the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records
Unit, room 7046, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at 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, 2009, through February 28, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coinbra-Frutesp (SA).......................... *
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and 3.97
Agricultura..................................
Montecitrus Trading S.A....................... *
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A...................... 0.42 (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries.
We have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the
sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate is above de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice, 68 FR 23954. This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by companies included in these final
[[Page 50179]]
results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if
there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the
transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of OJ from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will
be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent,
de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit
will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a
firm covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 16.51 percent, the all-others rate established in the
LTFV investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice
from Brazil, 72 FR 12183 (Mar. 9, 2006). These deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 5, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum
1. Offsetting of Negative Margins.
2. Capping Interest Revenue by Credit Expenses.
3. Request for Revocation by Cutrale.
4. U.S. Brix Level.
5. Inventory Carrying Costs for Cutrale's U.S. Sales.
6. Calculation of Cutrale's U.S. Indirect Selling Expense Rate.
7. Calculation of Cutrale's General and Administrative Expense
Rate.
8. Calculation of Fischer's International Freight Expenses.
9. Use of Fischer's Home Market Sample Sales in Calculating
Normal Value and Constructed Value Profit.
[FR Doc. 2011-20563 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
